13. Resolution 4289 - Resolution of Intent to Annex a Portion of the Evergreen Commercial Stripk, 103 O.M., I v
JULY 29 COUNGEL WORKSHOP
-DEFINE BOUND ARMS
-IDENTIFY AFFECTED TRACTS
-DISCUSS REVENTIES/COSTS
-DRAFT EXTENTSION OF SER7110ES PLAN
AUGUST 12 COUNCIL WORKSHOP
-DISCUSS RESOLUTION OF INTENT
AUGUST19 VOTE ON RESOLUTITON OF LNTE-Nrr
AUGUST 20-26 VERIFY OWNERSHIP OF EACH PARCEL
SEPTENTBER 16 SUBMIT NOTICE TO nAU-Y INTtR LAICE FOR PUBLICATION
SEPTEMBER 20 SENT) NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS & PURCHASERS UNDER
CONTRACT FOR DEED
SEPTEIVIBER 22 NOTICE PUBLISHED
SEPTEA4BER 29 SECOND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
OCTOBER8 PLANNING BOARD HEARLNG RE, ZONING CLASSIFICATION(S)
OCTOBER12 END OF 20-DAY PROTEST PERIOD
OCTOBER21 COUNCIL HEARING ON QUESTION OF ANNEXATION
RESOLUTION NO. 4289
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, COMPRISING THAT TERRITORY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHED HERETO AND THEREBY MADE A PART HEREOF, TO BE DESIGNATED AS
THE EVERGREEN ANNEXATION NO. 275, TO FIX A DATE OF A HEARING
THEREON, AND TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SAID HEARING.
WHEREAS, in the judgement of the City Council of the City of
Kalispell, Montana, it is in the best interest of the
City of Kalispell and the inhabitants thereof, and the
inhabitants of the contiguous platted tracts or parcels
of land or unplatted land for which a certificate of
survey has been filed, which are contained in Exhibit
"A" , attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof, that
the boundaries of the City of Kalispell would be extended
so as to include the same within the corporate limits of
the City of Kalispell, and zoned General Business B-2, or
other appropriate zone in accordance with the City of
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1175, as
amended, and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 1995, the City Council adopted, pursuant
to Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 47, Montana Code Annotated,
an Extension of Services Plan which anticipated
development of the City services for approximately five
years in the future, and
WHEREAS, the City Council shall, prior to annexing said property
cause to be developed an extension of services plan
specifically addressing the territory described in
Exhibit "A", and proposed by this Resolution to be
annexed, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission shall on October 8, 1996, hold a public
hearing, pursuant to Section 27.30.030, City of Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance, to recommend zoning for the territory
described in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance, in the event the territory is annexed
to the City, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell desires to annex the property to
the City limits under the provisions of Title 7, Chapter
2, Part 43 Montana Code Annotated (Annexation of
Contiguous Land), and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, MONTANA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That it is the intention of the City of
Kalispell that certain territory comprising
the Evergreen Addition No. 275 be embraced
within the corporate limits of the City of
Kalispell and the boundaries of said City be
so extended so as to include the same. Said
territory is more particularly described in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and thereby made
a part hereof.
SECTION II. That it is further the intention of the City
of Kalispell that the property described in
Exhibit "A" be zoned as General Business, B-2
or other appropriate zone in accordance with
the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 1175, as amended.
SECTION III.
SECTION IV.
The City Clerk of Council shall forthwith
prepare and publish in Daily Inter Lake, a
daily newspaper published at Kalispell,
Montana, proper notice of this Resolution of
Intention at least once a week for two
successive weeks next preceding the regularly
scheduled Council meeting at which said
annexation will be considered; and give said
notice in writing, addressed to the addresses
to which tax notices are sent, to all owners
and purchasers under contract for deed of the
property in the territory to be embraced.
For a period of twenty days after the first
publication of said notice by the City Clerk
of Council, said City Clerk of Council will
receive expressions in writing of approval or
disapproval of the proposed extensions of the
boundaries of said City of Kalispell from the
real property owners within the territory
proposed to be annexed.
SECTION V. At the regularly scheduled meeting of the City
Council of the City of Kalispell next
succeeding the expiration of said twenty days,
the City Clerk of Council shall lay before the
Council all communications in writing so
received by her for the City Council's
consideration. If after considering the same
such council shall duly and regularly pass and
adopt a resolution to that effect, the
boundaries of the City shall be extended to
RESOLUTION NO. 4289 2
embrace and include such platted tracts or
parcels of land or unplatted land for which a
certificate of survey has been filed; the time
when the same shall go into effect to be fixed
by Such resolution.
SECTION VI. Such resolution shall not be adopted by the
Council if there is disapproval in writing by
a majority of the real property owners of the
territory proposed to be embraced.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR THIS DAY OF
AUGUST, 1996.
Douglas D. Rauthe - Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
RESOLUTION NO. 4289 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF KALISPELL
EVERGREEN ANNEXATION
A tract of land located in Sections 4, 8 and 9 of Township 28 North, Range 21 West, Principal
Meridian, Montana, Flathead County, Montana, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section
8, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M., M., and the POINT -OF -BEGINNING; thence
N89°53'04"W along the south boundary of said quarter, quarter section, a distance of 1311.54
feet to the Southwest comer of said quarter, quarter section and the Northeast comer of Parcel
3 of C.O.S. 12292, records of Flathead County; thence S00° 18' 19"E along the East boundary
of said parcel, a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeast comer of said parcel; thence
N89058'54"W along the South boundary of said parcel, a distance of 192.32 feet to the
Southwest corner of said parcel and the easterly right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 2; thence
S19034'02"W along said right-of-way, a distance of 18.16 feet to a point on the westerly
boundary of that tract described in Book 85, Page 117, records of Flathead County; thence the
following three (3) courses along said westerly boundary; S01 ° 17'08"W a distance of 348.36
feet; S33 ° 15'00"W a distance of 242.30 feet, S03 °47'E a distance of 169.60 feet to a point on
the northerly boundary of that tract described in Book 98, Page 358, records of Flathead
County; thence southwesterly a distance of 38 feet, more or less, to the northerly -most corner
of Tract "A" of C.O.S. 8023, records of Flathead County; thence the following five (5) courses
along the northerly and westerly boundaries of said tract; S12028'00"W a distance of 176.10
feet; N88004'00"W a distance of 443.26 feet; along a non -tangent curve to the right have a
beginning radial bearing of N27°24'21"W, a radius of 1025 feet, a central angle of 07038'15"
and an ending radial bearing of S19046'06"E, an arc distance of 136.63 feet; S29°41'45"W a
distance of 145.48 feet; S75052' 18"W a distance of 308.40 feet to a point on the easterly right-
of-way of Woodland Park Drive; thence southwesterly across said right-of-way to the easterly -
most corner of Parcel "B" of C.O.S. 7417, records of Flathead County; thence N30024'36"W
along the north-easterly boundaries of Parcels "B" and "A" of said C.O.S., a distance of 175.21
feet to the northerly -most comer of said Parcel "A" and the southerly right-of-way of U.S.
Highway No. 2; thence S75°40'45"W along said right-of-way, a distance of 82.50 feet to a point
on the easterly right-of-way of that 100'-wide railroad right-of-way described in Book 1, Page
259, records of Flathead County; thence N30030'E along said easterly right-of-way, a distance
of 1650 feet, more or less; thence continuing along said right-of-way on a curve to the left
having a radius of 1493 feet and a central angle of 11 058', an arc distance of 311.83 feet; thence
continuing along said right-of-way, N18°34'E a distance of 43 feet, more or less, to the
Southwest corner of Parcel 1 of C.O.S. 12629, records of Flathead County; thence
N 18 °08' 52"E along the westerly boundary of said parcel, a distance of 286.93 feet to the
northerly -most corner of said parcel; thence S02058'00"W along the East boundary of said
parcel, a distance of 278.92 feet to the North right-of-way of Montclair Drive; thence
N89a43'06"E along said right-of-way, a distance of 445.09 feet; thence N51 °40'E along said
right-of-way, a distance of 734.96 feet; thence N74°28'E along said right-of-way, a distance of
766.10 feet to a point on the East line of Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 21 West,
Principal Meridian, Montana; thence S00°00' 16"W along said section line, a distance of 41.59
feet to the Northeast comer of the 0.164 acre tract on C.O.S. 6129, records of Flathead County,
said point also being on the northerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 2; thence N65°12'E
along said right-of-way, a distance of 230 feet, more or less; thence S12°E along said right-of-
way, a distance of 50 feet, more or less; thence N65°12'E along said right-of-way, a distance
of 170 feet, more or less; thence North, leaving said right-of-way, a distance of 55 feet, more
or less, to the Southeast corner of Tract 1 of C.O.S. 3255, records of Flathead County; thence
N20°02'06"E along the west boundary of said tract, a distance of 44.28 feet; thence
N08°29' 16"W along said West boundary, a distance of 288.97 feet; thence N65°53'03"E along
the North boundary of said tract, a distance of 282.01 feet to northeasterly -most corner of said
tract and the West right-of-way of River Road; thence S00°42'W along said right-of-way, a
distance of 30 feet, more or less; thence easterly a distance of 60 feet, more or less, to the
intersection of the East right-of-way of River Road with the North right-of-way of West
Cottonwood Drive; thence N79°37' 12"E along the North right-of-way of West Cottonwood
Drive, a distance of 314.00 feet; thence N76"32' 12"E along said right-of-way, a distance of
111.26 feet to the Southwest corner of Tract 3G of C.O.S. 9024, records of Flathead County;
thence N00°07'12"E along the West boundary of said tract, a distance of 98.64 feet to the
Northwest comer of said tract; thence S89°52'48"E along the North boundary of said tract, a
distance of 193.11 feet to the Northeast comer of said tract; thence S00°07' 12"W along the East
boundary of said tract, a distance of 52.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said tract; thence
easterly a distance of 30 feet, more or less, to a point on the East boundary of the Southwest
quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M.;
thence S00°22'42"E along said boundary, a distance of 260 feet, more or less, to the northerly -
most corner of Parcel "A" of C.O.S. 10055, records of Flathead County, said point also being
on the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 2; thence S65°18'46"W along said right-of-
way, a distance of 22.00 feet to the Northeast comer of Parcel 3 of C.O.S. 2379, records of
Flathead County; thence the following three (3) courses along said highway right-of-way;
S65 ° 17' 13 "W a distance of 86.83 feet; S24 "43'47"E a distance of 5.00 feet; S65 ° 17' 13W" A
distance of 311.23 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of that tract described in Document
9103610270, records of Flathead County; thence the following three(3) courses along said
easterly boundary; S00°35'W a distance of 100.68 feet; S19°40'W a distance of 131.60 feet;
S30°33'W a distance of 135.00 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary of that tract
described in Deed Exhibit 351, records of Flathead County; thence S46°07'E along the
northeasterly boundary of said tract, a distance of 113.17 feet; thence S24°20'W along the
southeasterly boundary of said tract, a distance of 395.50 feet; thence N37°45'W along the
southwesterly boundary of said tract, a distance of 287.00 feet; thence N75°45'W along said
boundary, a distance of 271.00 feet to the center of the Stillwater River; thence S70052'35"W
a distance of 62 feet, more or less to the easterly boundary of Tract 1 of C.O.S. 10444, records
of Flathead County; thence the following eleven (11) courses along said easterly boundary;
S19007'25"E a distance of 38.74 feet; S00°42'03"E a distance of 161.60 feet; S63016'57"W
a distance of 29.54 feet; S30058'08"W a distance of 226.16 feet; S30°00'15"W a distance of
64.83 feet; S07°26'05"W a distance of 169.43 feet; S29°36'22"W a distance of 54.16 feet;
S16°57'39"E a distance of 73.21 feet; S40°16'39"E a distance of 130.60 feet; S68°11'18"E a
distance of 49.61 feet; S75°20'34"E a distance of 96.64 feet to the South boundary of said tract;
thence N89°35'15"W along said boundary, a distance of 300.98 feet to the POINT -OF -
BEGINNING.
1 � �Jl�gl
0 I I 01
Incorporated 1892
Telephone (406) 758-7700
FAX (406) 758-7758
Post Office Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana
Zip 59903-1997
MEM"O'k
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Al Thelen, Interim City Manager
Date: August 8, 1996
Re.: Evergreen Annexation
The Evergreen Annexation that we are proposing as an
initial step includes the commercial strip between the current
7ity boundary and West Cottonwood Drive, which includes thirty-
four (34) properties. The proposed boundary is designed so that
we will have waiver's of the right to protest/request to
withdraw from the fire district from more than fifty (50)
percent of the property owners. Our current numbers set the
property taxable values at $404,882, and the potential increase
in property taxes to the City is at $203,531, street assessments
at $10,493, storm sewer assessments at $10,844, aamblina
revenues at $75,000, and personal property tax at $8,000, for an
estimated total of $307,868. The properties to be annexed will
not be required to pay the current Road Levy, which is currently
15 mills; therefore, their county taxes will be reduced by
$6,000. Our service study reflects that we can serve this area
ith our existing manpower and equipment so the major advantage
to the City will be the increased tax base.
Douglas Rauthe
Manor
Al Thelen
Interim City ,'.tanager
City Council
Members:
Gary W. Nystul
Ward I
Cliff Collins
Ward I
Norbert F. Donahue
Ward II
Dale Haarr
Ward II
Jim ,Atkinson
Ward III
Lauren Granmo
Ward III
Pamela B. Kennedy
Ward IV
M. Duane Laron
Ward IV
Mayor and City Council
Page 2
August 9, 1996
Attached is a memo from City Attorney Glen Neier that
indicates two legal approaches to annexation. We will be using
section 7-2-4314, which allows for 50% + 1 of the owners to protest
out the annexation. As Glen's opinion indicates if boundaries are
designed so that 50% + 1 of the owners have consented to the
annexation, no legal protest could be filed.
The time table for this proposal includes:
July 29 Council Workshop
-Define Boundaries
-Identify All Affected Tracts
-Discuss Revenues/Costs
-Draft Extension of Services Plan
August 12 Council Workshop
-Discussion of Resolution of Intent
August 19 Vote on Resolution of Intent
August 20 Send Notice to Property Owners & Purchasers
Under Contract for Deed
August 20 Submit Notice to Daily Inter Lake for Publication
August 25 Notice Published
September 1 Notice Published 2nd Time
September 14 End of 20-Day Protest Period
September 16 Council Hearing on Question of Annexation
It is anticipated that the second phase of the annexation will
proceed after October 1, 1996 and will include the balance of the
so called "commercial strip" and the Attorney General's opinion
referred to in Glen's memo will be the legal basis for Phase II.
It can be implemented prior to the end of the calendar year.
Mayor and City Council
Page 3
August 9, 1996
Since our meeting on July 29, I have received some inquiries
from Council members regarding an agreement by the City not to
consider this item until at least the year 2000 because we agreed
to this delay. I have enclosed copies of letters from the City
Manager to Senator Harp and Bill Astle in early 1995. The files do
not reflect that a response was received, and Senate Bill 52 was
passed and became law.
I have also received inquires and concerns that the way the
staff has proposed the use of "Waivers of Right to Protest" the
City is gerrymandering and again trying to grab revenues. My
reaction to that is that the City is using strategic planning to
use the "waivers" to meet City goals. It is one of the management
tools available to cities to meet it's goals. Your number one goal
established earlier this year is to have a "financially sound and
stable City Government." The annexing of strategic commercial
areas on the fringe of the City is in concert with this goal. As
mentioned in your July 1st memo, all of the reasons the Council
used in 1993-94 to annex this commercial area are as valid today as
it was in 1993-94.
Brian Wood's updated service plan and statistical data
relating to this annexation is enclosed. I have also enclosed a
historic memorandum regarding the Evergreen Annexation.
'(11� 01
Incorporated 1892
-iephone (406) 758-7700 Douglas Rauthe
FAX (406) 758-7758 Mayor
post Office Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana Bruce Williams
Zip 59903-1997 City Manager
DATE: July 22, 1996 City Council
Members:
TO: Al Thelen Gary W.Nyswl
Ward I
FROM: Glen Neier
44 Cliff Collins
Ward I
RE: Protest Scenarios Greenacres/Evergreen
Annexations Norbert F. Donahue
Ward 11
Over the past several weeks the City staff has been working Dale Haarr
on two proposals to annex a portion of the Greenacres area Ward11
South of Kalispell and a portion of the Evergreen Strip. JimYou have requested an analysis of the number of properties W Atkinson
Ward I11
subject to annexation within each area based upon the
number of consents or waivers possessed by the City. Lauren Granmo
Ward III
The City would probably attempt to annex both areas under Pamela B. Kennedy
Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 43 Annexation of Contiguous Land ward iv
Montana Code Annotated. Assuming that preliminary matters
are in order and the Council passes a Resolution of M. Duane Larson
Intention in either annexation, protests to the annexation `Hardly
are dealt with as follows:
§ 7-2-4314
2) The resolution (finally annexing the
property) may not be adopted by the city
council if disapproved in writing by a
majority of the real property owners of the
area proposed to be annexed, and further
resolutions relating to the annexation of
the area or any portion of the area may not
be considered or acted upon by the council
on its own initiative without petition, for
a period of 1 year from the date of
disapproval.
The City has in its possession Consent to Annex forms
signed by many "property owners" within both the Evergreen
and Greenacres area. If boundaries are established for an
area in which over 50% of the "property owners" have
consented to annexation, the City should be able to resist
any challenge to the annexation based upon protest from the
Al Thelen
July 22, 1996
Page 2
area. "Property owners" for purpose of protest would be
the owners of platted tracts or the owners of unplatted
tracts for which there is a survey. (S 7-2-4311, MCA) Each
tract, platted or unplatted, would have one vote in
protest. If certain properties protested, having
previously consented, the City could use the consents to
defeat the protest.
Under a previous memo, I discussed the effect of a certain
A.G. opinion which held a municipality may adopt a rule
conditioning receipt or continuation of water and sewer
service on annexation. If such a rule was in effect, the
City, according to the opinion, could decline to recognize
protests because of the election to receive or continue
service. As that opinion applies to Greenacres, it would
appear to me that the City could argue that individuals
within the area to be annexed are served by the sewer
and/or water and, therefore subject to annexation under the
A.G. opinion. The interpretation would generally increase
the number of tracts subject to annexation because there
are more lots receiving service than have consented to the
annexation. It should be pointed out that the A.G. opinion
has not been litigated so there would conceivably be a
challenge to an attempt by the City using the opinion as a
basis to reject protests. However, if the opinion holds up,
the City would be able to annex twice the number of
properties that it actually serves.
The A.G. opinion has less applicability to Evergreen than
Greenacres. In Evergreen, the City is not providing
service directly to those individuals served by Flathead
Water and Sewer District. I don't believe the City could
successfully bootstrap service to a District into consent
of individual property owners in order to annex. However,
in the Evergreen strip area we have quite a number of
recorded consents, which may be used to counter protest
received from real property owners within the strip area.
GN/sh
PC: City Council
Incorporated 1892
telephone (406) 758-7700
FAX (406) 758-7758
Post Office Box 1997
Zip 59903-1997
January 24, 1995
Senator John G. Harp
Senator Majority Leader
State Capitol Building
Post Office Box 201701
Helena, MT 59620-1701
Dear Senator Harp:
FAXED This Date
1-900-225-1600
The Kalispell City Council last evening discussed the
possibility of compromising its position with regard to the
Evergreen Annexation dispute.
The City Council consensus is that a compromise makes sense if
it brings about peace between local neighbors and eliminates
the need to amend Montana's annexation laws as suggested by
F..-_SB-52 .
The Kalispell City Council therefore suggests that the
annexation be phased over the next five years.
Phase I would include those properties between the city's
eastern boundary and the Still Water River. Annexation of
Phase I would take place some time during the spring of 1995.
Phase II would include all the remaining parcels identified in
the city's Resolution of Intent to Annex #4717. Phase II
annexation would begin sometime after July 1, 2000.
It is our sincere desire that this compromise is acceptable to
you and results in a good faith effort by you to discontinue
advancing SB-52. We also look forward to an agreement from
your constituents affected by the future annexation accepting
the city's compromised position. We look forward to your
favorable response.
Sincerely,
Bruce Williams
City Manager
W/ksk
Douglas Rauthe
Mayor
Bruce Williams
City Manager
City Council
Members:
Gary W. Nystul
Ward I
Cliff Collins
Ward I
Barbara Moses
Ward II
Dale Haarr
Ward It
Jim Atkinson
Ward III
Lauren Granmo
Ward III
Pamela B. Kennedy
Ward IV
M. Duane Larson
Ward IV
FLU G 4 tVv
ASTLE and ASTLE
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
705 MAIN STREET
KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901
DAVID L. ASTLE
WILLIAM E. ASTLE
February 24, 1995
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Bruce C. Williams
Kalispell City Manager
City Hall
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Kalispell/Evergreen Annexation
Dear Mr. Williams:
TEL. (4061 7 52.7 393
FAX (406) 257.3268
Please be advised that l am in receipt of your letter of February 23, 1995,
relative to the above matter, in particular the subject of a resolution of
r. annexation being presently adopted with an effective date of January 2000.
I have forwarded your letter to the Evergreen Coalition for review and response,
which as you know includes the property owners in the intended area of
annexation.
Very truly yours,
ASTLE & ASTLE
WEA/slp
WMI I'l,
�4y No
0 10 1 A.M." 19 E I
EXTENSION OF SERVICES PLAN'
AUGUST 12,1996
Pursut-wt to Sections 7.2-4305 and 7-2-4732 Montana Code Anotated,
this document will present a plan for the extension of municipal services
to the area identified for annexation in Resolution of Intent # The
area under consideration encompasses approximately 54 acres of public
and private land in addition to approximately one (1) mile of U.S,
Highway 42 right -or -way. The area is dominated by highway -oriented
commercial land uses.There are six single-family dwellings in the
affected area and two multiple -dwelling properties. The residential
population of the area under consideration is estimated to be no greater
than sixty.
This report is designed to analyze the demands upon City of Kalispell
services that would be realized upon annexation of the area. A service
plan is a requirement for all methods of annexation under Section 7-2-
4305, MCA, and must address bow a municipality will meet the costs
incurred by extending services into the annexed area. This report will
demonstrate how municipal 'Law enforcement, fire protection and
infrastructure maintenance will be provided to the newly annexed area
in a manner and at a level commensurate with the services being
provided to the zurrent City of Kalispell residents. A strategy to fmance
the services is included as well.
In addition to the City ofKalispell Extension of Services Plan, adopted
by the city council in November of t995, the city's Fire., Police, Parks
and Public Works Departments have independently conducted analyses
of their respective service needs and costs associated with the proposed
annexation.
CHARACTE STICS THE AUA NTI -D NISI CATION
A. LA
-34 Properties Totalling 2,342,918 sq. Ft. (+/- 54 acres) Plus Approximately One
Mile of U. S. Highway 42 Right -of -Way
-29 Separate Businesses
-6 Single -Family Residences
-2 Multiple Dwelling Properties
1. Real Property
Market Value
Taxable Value
----------------
1995 'Tax
2. Personal Property
$10, 489,205.00
404,882.43
S 164,989.83
1995 Tax (estimated) $ 48, 000.00
TOTAL $ 212,989.83
C. ANTICIPATED TAXATION &c ASSESSMENTS UPON AN,.NEKATION
1. Real Property $ 203,531.01
2. Personal Property (estimated) 60,000.00
3. City Street Assessments 10,493.20
4. City Storm Sewer Assessments 10,844.73
Net Increase : $71,879.11 or $0.031 per square foot
LXISTLN ,aLJ�'�'ICES
The Evergreen Water and Sewer District currently provides eater serviee to the area. All or a
portion of each property being considered For annexation lies within the boundary of the
Evergreen Sewer and Waccr District.
The area is sen ed by the Kalispell wasterwater treatment plant via the Evergreen sewage
collwi.on system, Tl:-�s collection systen, . was constructed in 1993-54 and is owned and operated
by the. independent Evergreen Water and Seer District. The District, by contract, has been
allotted a 220ro share of the City of Kalispell's wastewater treatment plant's current capacity.
STf ARALNAGF:
There are no public storm venter drarrraae facilities within the territory to be arwexed.
STREETS:
The public street system w Ain the area to be annexed includes portions of Flathead Drive, West
Cottonwood Drive and River Road, Montclair Drive in its entirety, and, as is mentioned above,
approximately one (1) mile of U.S. Highway ##2 right-of-way.
Contract haulers currently prorride refine, collection and disposal senates to the area.
POLICE PROTECTION -
The area to be annexed is RIb-itn the jurisdiction of the Flathead County Sheriffs Department
^^
The Evergreen Rural Fire District provides fire protection sev ice to the area In terms of land
area, the proposed annexation represents less *aa one-half of one percent (.05%) of the rural fire
dist�trict's jurisdiction. The tax loss to the district will amount to an estimated 2- to 3-percent of
-Their total levy.
,. -
MUM
The existing public water supply services of the Evergreen Water and Sewer District will continue
to serve the needs of those properties to be annexed. Ownership and operation of the water
system will; remain with the Evergreen District upon annexation.
The Evergreen Water and Sewer District will continue to own, operate and maintain the sewage
collection system which serves the area to be annexed. And, per the Interlocal Agreement
between the City of Kalispell and the Water and Sewer District dated. July 25, 1990, effluent from
the area will be treated at the city's wastewater treatment plant.
No storm drainage infrastructure exists at this time in the area to be annexed. Upon annexation,
the area will be incorporated into the city's master storm drainage plan, with improvements
designed and installed as financing allows. Following annexation, property owners in the affected
area will pay, as do all property owners in the city, an annual Storm Water Maintenance
Assessment. Assessments are based on the use and square -footage of the property and range from
$.0013735 to .005494 per square -foot- As vacant land 'In the area to be anuexGed is developed, and
as improved sites are redeveloped, the city will have the opportunity, through the building permit
and site review processes, to require proper storm water management.
It is expected that upon annexation that the City of Kalispell will accept dedication from Flathead
County of Montclair Drive said those portions of Flathead Drive, Nest Cottonwood Drive and
River Road that He within the area of annexation. The annexation would in no way affect the
status of U. S. Highway #2.
County lkghts-of-Way presumed to be dedicated:
Flathead Drive - Hwy. 2 to Montclair Drive 0.31 mi.
Montclair Drive - Flathead Drive to NWNW 9-28-21 0.40 mi.
River Road- Hwy. 2 to N. Boundary of W. Cottonwood Dr. 0.07 mi.
W. Cottonwood Dr.- River Road to SWSW 4-28-21 0.1.3 mi.
maintenance costs, including snow plovAng, sanding, de-icing, sweeping, patching, and all
associated materials, are estimated to be $10,000.00 annually. No new equipment purchases are
needed to serve the area, and no additional personnel are required.
Asphalt overlays on the streets to be acquired will be needed in the next two to three years. Total
estimated cost of overlaying the -i-/- one mile of roads is $90,000,00.
Each property within the area to be annexed will be annually assessed $.0045 per square foot of
land. These monies are earmarked for street maintenance activities.
The City of Kalispell, in accord with the provisions o£7-2-473b, M.C.A., Will not provide solid
waste disposal service to the area to be annexed for a period of at least five (5) years from the
effective date of the annexation, unless otherwise allowed by the same statute.
The Kalispell Police Department (KPD), at its current staffing level, will provide police services to
the area to be annexed at a level commensurate with that afforded all other city residents and
properties. The area under consideration is in closer proximity to City Hall and the Police
Department's headquarters than the northerly reaches of the city limits, and because of the
presence of Highway 42, much more accessible. The KPD's highly -visible patrol pattern can
easily be extended to include the subject property without jeopardizing its efficiency or
effectiveness. Furthermore the KPD can generally provide quicker response tunes than the
Flathead County Sheriffs Department for service calls in this area. The sheriff's department, with
a documented shortage of manpower, is charged with law enforcement duties county -wide;
placing this commercial area in the jurisdiction of the KPD will allow the sheriff to devote more
attention to other areas of the county.
WZt. ' U#J
The City of Kalispell Fire Department will provide fire protection services to the area upon
annexation. The Department has 18 full-time firefighters and three officers. All areas of the city
are serried by hydrants, the Department. is equipped with adequate and up-to-date fire. -fighting
apparatus, and enjoys an insurance rating of "5".
Fire protection is currently provided to residents of the city as far as 2.9 miles from City Hall,
with response tunes to those areas in the 6- to 8-minute range. The easternmost boundary of the
annexation is 2.5 miles from City Hall and can be reached in. 4 to 5 minutes.. Response times for
fir ghters and equipment to this area, though equidistant from the fire station, are better than
those to the Gateway West -Mall on Kalispell's west side. The direct route from the fire station to
ffighway 2 (Fast Idaho Street) and then east to the Evergreen area account for the difference in
response times.
In addition to providing fire fighting services, the city will also be providing fire inspection
services to the area to be annexed. Inclu&.g this area in the ciq,'s jurisdiction will also facilitate
coordinated building permit plan review between the city's building and fire departments. This
coor&nation will insure that new construction in the area meets all applicable fire codes.
One service which is already pruiided to the subject area: at no cost to the individual taxpayers
receiving the benefit, is the Kalispell Fire Department ambulance service. This is a service which
will continue to be prodded to areas outside the city limits whether this annexation m-urs or not,
Current fire personnel, equipment and facilities can adequately senme the area. The lone expense
associated with the annexation would be that of iocorporating the traffic signal at TTIgbway 2 and
Wal-Nfmt into the city's Opticom system. Estimated cost- $3,000.00,
" a i �M
The county currently ma mains the landscaped medians in U . S. F iglavay 42 tbrougb an agreement
with the Montana Department of Transportation. MDOT has paid to the county $lW,000 in trust
to maintain these areas through the year 2005. Upon annexation, and with the cooperation of the
county, these responsibilities would be assumed by the city's parks and Recreation Department.
,As funding is in place, there would be no expense. to the city.
NET UAPACIAND CONCLUSIONS'.
As there is expected to be some $I55,000.00* ($75,000,00 of WEch is estimated gaming
revenue) of annual revenue realized, to pay =ual costs esWrmted at f'ar less than $100,000.00.
the City of Kalispell can c£fwdvely and efficiently serve the area being considered for annexation.
The owners ofpropeM, in the affected area will receive municipal services on the same basis and
in the same manner as such servim are provided throughout the raunicipality.
* Real & Personal Property `axes: +/- $60,000
Gaming Revenues:
City assessments: 20 000
TOTAL +/- $155,000
TAXTOTAL.XLS
A
g
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Total
Personal
City
City
City
City Tax on
Current
Prop. Tax
Map
#
Land Use
Size
Current (95)Tax
Real Property
Street
Assess.
Storm
Assess.
Tax on
Real Prop.
Real Property
& Assessments
%
Increase
Personal
Prop. Tax
Upon
Annexation
°/u
Increase
1
Vacant (Applebee's)
100,624
2,043.36
452.80
138.20
2,507.23
3,098.23
51.6
0.00
0.00
0
2
CarCo Auto Sales
3,485
131.46
15.68
14.36
161.30
191.34
45.5
88.85
109.01
22.7
3
Evergreen Pharmacy
23,087
2,252.46
103.89
95.14
2,763.80
2,962.83
31.5
N/A
4
High Country Honda
40,075
3,149.02
180.34
220.17
3,863.90
4,264.41
35.4
489.90
601.12
22.7
5
Vacant (WalMart Pads)
125,453
3,694.60
564.54
172.30
4,410.63
6,147.47
43.2
0.00
0.00
_ 0
6
WalMart
705,672
92,126.67
3,175.52
3,876.96
113,040.84
120,093.32
30.4
40,746.72
49,996.91
22.7
7
Northern Energy
30,928
1,507.58
139.17
169.92
1,849.83
2,158.92
43.2
299.70
367.74
22.7
8
Golden Wheels
6,692
2,480.81
30.11
36.76
3,044.00
3,110.87
25.4
N/A
9
Balding's Used Cars
26,136
3,578.03
117.61
143.59
4,390.30
4,651.50
30
23.15
28.41
22.7
10
Plantland
66,776
1,512.89
300.49
366.81
1,856.34
2,523.64
66.8
126.62
165.36
22.7
i
11
The Aquarium Shop
22,216
1,346.72
99.97
122.05
1,615.22
1,837.24
36.5
155.06
190.26
22.7
12
Flathead Transmission
38,768
858.27
174.46
212.99
1,053.11
1,440.66
67.8
422.29
618.16
22.7
Page 1
TAXTOTAL.XLS
A
B
C
®
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Personal
Current
Prop. Tax
Map
##
Land Use
Size
Current (95) Tax
Real Property
Street
Assess.
Storm
Assess.
City Tax on
Real Prop.
Total City Tax on
Real Prop. & Ass't
%
Increase
Personal
Prop. Tax
Upon
Annexation
%
increase
13
Marty's
14,810
1,682.54
66.64
81.37
1,941.80
2,089.81
32.1
incl. in 12
14
Sunset Trading
30,492
2,121.47
137,21ff471.46
2,603.08
2,907.81
37.07
12.08
14.82
22.7
15
Friendship Inn, SFR
85,813
4,663.24
386.16
5,721.87
6,579.49
41.1
156.85
192.46
22.7
16
Mountain Masonry
18,015
1,389.67
81.07
98.97
1,705.15
1,886.19
35.7
19.48
23.91
22.7
17
Commercial Repair
18,035
1,179.39
81.16
99.08
1,447.13
1,627.37
38
N/A
18
Residential
109,335.60
1,338.50
492.01
300.34
1,642.36
2,434.71
81.9
N/A
19
Western Building Center
37,897
4,331.12
170.54
20&21
5,314.36
5,693.11
31.4
447,56
549.16
22.7
20
BatCo; Mom's Place
22,216
2,091.07
99.97
122.05
2,565.78
2,787.80
33.3
N/A
21
Town & Country Mobiles
45,302
1,479.46
203.86
248,89
1,815.32
2,268.07
53.3
N/A
22
Rocky Mtn. Marina
74,052
2,204.18
333.23
4g6.84
2,704.57
3,444.64
56.3
61.83
76.87
22.7
23
Vacant
118,483
3,698.78
533.17
162.74
4,415.76
6,111.67
42
0.00
0.00
0
24
Substation
27,530
123.88
113.45
237.33
N/A
25
Ponderosa Motors
104,980
8,540.37
472.41
576.76
10,479.18
11,528.35
35
249.01
306.54
22.7
26
Rick's RV
6,089
1,318.05
27.40
33.45
1,617.27
1,678.12
27.3
77.26
94.79
22.7
Subtotal
1,902,9621
160,418.61
8,56129
8,660.38
184,530.131
201,753.80
42,928.80
53,223.52
Page 2
`t
TAXTOTAL.XLS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Personal
Current
Prop. Tax
Map
Land Use
Size
Current (95) Tax
Street
Storm
City Tax on
Total City Tax on
%
Personal
Upon
%
#
Real Property
Assess.
Assess.
Real Prop.
Real Prop. & Ass't
Increase
Prop. Tax
Annexation
Increase
27
Taylor's Big O Tires
16,553
388.67
74.49
90.94
496.81
662.24
70.4
362.67
463.69
27.8
28
" If
24,394
3,189.52
109.77
134.02
4,077.94
4,321.73
35.5
incl. in 27
29
Dowen Nissan
172,933
4,365.35
778.20
1,027.22
5,581.29
7,386.71
69.2
878.86
1,123.66
27.8
30
Vacant (Billboard)
11,761
10.16
3.04
16.15
12.97
32.16
216.4
0.00
0.00
0
31
Diet Center, SFR
82,328
1,831.32
370.48
241.12
2.341.41
2,953.01
61.3
N/A
32
Mobile Home Mkt Place
50,530
1,707.71
227.38
277.61
2,183.37
2,688.36
57.4
23.01
29.40
27.8
33
Evergreen Apartments
36,590
2,249.76
164.65
150.79
2,876.40
3,191.84
41.9
N/A
34
Nickel Charlies
44,867
2,950.32
201.90
246.50
3,772.10
4,220.60
43.1
1,093.06
1,397.53
27.8
TOTAL
2,342,918
167,111.30
10,493.20
10,844.731
203,531.01
224,868.94
38.9
45,733.96
66,237.80
22.96
Page 3
1 f'
SUBJECT: Evergreen Annexation - Issues - Extension of Services - Fiscal Impact
This Memorandum is presented as an outline of issues and observations and to
transmit data, including fiscal notes compiled for the preliminary presentation scheduled for the
Kalispell City Council - Work Session to be held on January 24, 1994.
Attached to this Memorandum are the following documents:
Evergreen Extension of Services Plan: Description of Property & Owners To
Be Annexed
2. Evergreen Extension of Services Plan: Current Tax Information
3. Evergreen Extension of Services Plan: Tax Comparison(s) w/Annexation
I. Introduction:
For the purpose of clarifying important facts and issues and as a reference point
for the City Council, I would like to take a brief walk back into the recent history of the
Evergreen Sewer Service Extension Agreement and the question of when and how
annexation was contemplated as part of the Council's approval process. As we began
tonight presentation of the Evergreen Annexation Issues, Extension of Services and Fiscal
Impact, it is important to revisit Council intent and actions to date.
While the discussion began over a decade ago, I'll go back only to the Spring of 1990
when Councilpersons Granmo, Larson, Atkinson, Moses and Nystul were all present and
voted on Councilman Schindler's historic motion, a motion which was seconded by
Councilman Nystul, to wit:
"...that the city of Kalispell accept the sewage from Evergreen based on a
51% or greater waiver of annexation from that area more commonly know
as the strip, from the Underpass hill to K- art. The specific boundaries of
the business district to be negotiated between the Sewer & Water Committee
and the Evergreen Sewer Department with all legal papers being signed,
upon that agreement."
After a lengthy debate by the City Council which will be discussed in detail later in my
comments, Councilman Schindler's motion was amended by Councilman Furlong, adding
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 1
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum]City Council
the very important language which has become the subject of much recent confusion.
Councilman Furlong's amendment was...
"...to provide for the right to immediate annexation of whatever specific
district fulfills the 51% requirement".
Furlong's amendment to Schindler's motion was seconded by Councilman Granmo. And
after the amendment was moved and seconded, Councilman Larson spoke in favor of the
motion with the amendment. He said it was a "reasonable compromise" (to annexing all
of Evergreen) He said he felt Evergreen should be able to obtain the waivers of protest
from the business district so that we could annex immediately if we chose to do so."
(emphasis added)
A. Legislative Intent Of The Kalispell City Council
It is important that we revisit the record of the March 19, 1990, actions of the Kalispell
City Council, and once again relate, in some detail, what the record says.
' On March 19, 1990, after months of intense discussion and numerous meetings with the
Evergreen Water District representatives Jack Fallon and its attorney Bill Astle, the City
of Kalispell held a PUBLIC HEARING regarding a PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE
SEWER SERVICE TO EVERGREEN RESIDENTS.
When Mayor Hopkins opened the Public Hearing he said: "... the two -fold
question is:
1. "Should we be accepting the sewage from Evergreen?" He said he thought
everyone agreed on that.
2. "The larger question is whether or not we should take the sewage with the
condition that at some point in the future, we have been talking, about ten years
that the city would have an unarguable right to annex Evergreen?" (emphasis
added)
During the hearing, several residents of Kalispell expressed their views on the
questions raised by Mayor Hopkins in his opening remarks including Bill Astle, attorney
for the Evergreen Water District and Jack Fallon, their representative.
4
Date: January 25; 1994 Page 2
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
In general, the views of residents of the City of Kalispell could best be summed
up by quoting former Mayor Tom Flynn's observations as he concluded his comments
expressing concern for the ..."Shareholders, the City of Kalispell." Mayor Flynn said:
"...the only decision is to insist on the waivers, (of annexation) signed by the
majority of the property owners. Anything less than this tightens the noose
already constricting_ growth in Kalispell."
According to the minutes of the meeting, Councilman Granmo reported that the
City's Sewer and Water Committee met the preceding week for the sole purpose of...
"clarifying the policy the council has set on November 20, 1989, which stated
that annexation is not a negotiable item as regards treating the Evergreen Sewer
District sewage." (emphasis added) Councilman Granmo went on to say that
....at the last council meeting it was not clear whether everyone in Evergreen had
to sign the waiver or whether 51 % would be enough to make it possible for the
City to annex anyhow."
Councilman Granmo then read the proposed motion drawn up by the City
Attorney Glen Neier. To wit:
"Prior to reaching any agreement to treat the affluent (sic) from the
Evergreen Sewer District, consent to annex, notice of withdrawal from a
rural lire district, must be executed by 51% of owners of land, contract
sellers, and buyers and lien holders and 51% of the area within the Rural
Special Improvement District, to assure that the City would be able to annex
the property encompassed by the RSID no sooner than ten years from the
date of the agreement. "
Bill Astle; then argued that the Evergreen Water & Sewer District had adopted
a position that the city had an obligation to serve the Evergreen area without the
requirement of annexation and questioned the City's right to require annexation.
City Attorney Neier advised the Council that...
"Under the statute as we are considering it, the City has the discretionary right
to demand annexation of parcels or portions to be served by the City Water &
Sewer Utility. The City does not have the corresponding right to demand
annexation from areas not to be served or merely subject to potential service.
The City cannot be obligated to serve areas not subject to annexation."
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 3
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
After the Public Hearing was closed, several motions were offered, discussed and
failed. It should be acknowledged here ---that up to this point in the discussion ---most
of the motions included a consideration or provision that annexation would take place no
sooner than ten years from the date of agreement or ten years of the date of the motion;
however, the failed motion(s) also dealt with annexation of all of the property to be
served by the Evergreen RSID, including all residential property located within the
boundaries of the Evergreen RSID. In other words, most of what is currently known as
Evergreen.
Before I go on, it is important to understand and to again emphasize that the
Public Hearing and annexation discussions, up to this point of the March 19, 1990, City
Council meeting, involved all property located within the Evergreen Sewer RSID
boundaries. And, with the exception of Councilman Nystul, the rest of the City Council
favored requiring a waiver of the right to protest annexation of at least 51 % of the
owners and 51 % of the area of the Evergreen RSID.
Finally, Councilman Schindler introduced a "compromise motion" he felt would
address his concerns. Schindler's motion acknowledged that the City was mostly
interested in the business strip, because "...that's where the tax base is and that's where
' - the majority of the people are not protesting." Schindler moved:
"...that the City of Kalispell accept the sewage from Evergreen based on a 51% or
greater waiver of annexation from that area more commonly know as the strip, from
Underpass hill to K-Mart. The specific boundaries of the business district to be
negotiated between the Sewer & Water Committee and the Evergreen Sewer
Department with all legal papers being signed, upon that agreement.
Councilman Nystul seconded the notion and stated that the motion "...is a
compromise and is a positive one in that it gives a foot in the door from which
annexation can grow in due course of time." Most of the Council began to agree that
it was an acceptable solution.
For clarification, I have reviewed the record of the discussion following
Councilman Schindler's compromise motion in an attempt to shed even more light on
what appears to me to be clear "legislative intent."
Councilman Furlong asked Schindler: "If we require 51 % of this specific
district of that area (the Evergreen Strip) to sign the waivers, what does that do to all of
the other areas of the district? Does it mean they shall be sewered without annexation?
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 4
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
"Schindler stated "yes." He said, and I'll repeat his comments, that he "...felt
the general trend was that we were mostly interested in the business strip, that's where
the tax base is and that's where the majority of the people who are not protesting
are." He said he "...thought it would be a reasonable compromise between ALL or
nothing." (emphasis added)
NOTE: JACK FALLON STATED "THE MAP THAT SHOWS WHO WILL AND
WILL NOT SIGN HAS INDICATED THAT PEOPLE ON THE STRIP,
BETWEEN UNDERPASS HILL AND K-MART WILL SIGN WAIVERS."
In response to the motion on the floor, Councilman Atkinson expressed his view
that the motion was "...like putting a little finger out there where it will need to be
served by City Police, Water, Sewer, Fire and service." He said it was a
of
...misrepresentation of what the council has been interested in doing and that is creating
organized growth in the City of Kalispell" (annexing all of Evergreen).
Mayor Hopkins left no doubt as to his intent by stating he felt strongly that it is
in the City's best interest to require annexation. "One reason is to protect the tax base
that has been built up for a period of 98 years from the original sewer and water system
that was installed and we created what is Kalispell, Mayor Hopkins said." Further, he
said: "By allowing Evergreen to use our sewer system we have potential for
development because they don't have to pay the City tax base. We could see the city's
tax base erode at the cost to the (City) taxpayers," and that he did not feel "...we can tie
the hands of future Council people to make a prudent good planning decision somewhere
down the road as whether or not annexation is in the best interest of the city." Mayor
Hopkins concluded saying, "...we may be setting a precedent for future erosion of the
little tax base that we've required the waivers from."
Then, after this lengthy discussion, clearly focused on whether or not to annex
the Evergreen Strip or commercial property, Councilman Furlong asked if Schindler's
motion was... "I1N4PLY1NG IM1VilEDIATE ANNEXATION OF THE STRIP."
(emphasis added)
Schindler said he "...was going by what was before, using the 10 year period , "
which prompted Councilman Furlong to offer a very significant and clearly stated
amended motion:
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 5
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
• I .. # 11 1
Councilman Granmo seconded the amendment to the motion on the floor.
After reading all of the minutes of the meetings where these issues were discussed
and decided, it is my opinion that Councilman Larson adequately summed up the
legislative intent of the Kalispell City Council when he spoke in favor of the motion with
the amendment offered by Furlong and seconded by Granmo: Councilman Larson said:
"...it was a reasonable compromise ... I feel Evergreen should be able to obtain the
waivers of protest from the business district so that we could annex immediately
if we chose to do so. " (emphasis added)
The Council then approved the amendment to the motion to provide for the
immediate annexation of whatever specific district fulfills the 51 % requirement. Only
Nystul voted against the motion to amend. Thus, based on the discussion and the record,
it appears the intent was clear to allow for annexation of the Evergreen commercial strip
immediately.
The Council then voted on the motion as amended and approved it. It should be
noted here that Atkinson, Furlong and Moses voted against the motion as amended, it
appears because it would eliminate the waiver of protest requirements of 51 % of all
resident freeholders benefitted by the City sewer, and thus the consideration of immediate
annexation of all of Evergreen rather than limiting immediate annexation consideration
to only the Evergreen commercial strip.
Again, allow me to emphasize that both Jack Fallon and Bill Astle were present
during the full discussion of the intent and when the final motion was approved by the
Council. They should not have any doubt as to the legislative intent of the maker of the
original motion, the amendment, or those speaking for the motion as amended
eliminating any inclusion of a 10-year waiting period and instead providing for the right
to immediate annexation of the Evergreen Commercial Strip. The only stated opposition
to that intent was from Councilman Nystul, the others who voted against the amended
motion opposed it because it limited immediate annexation consideration to just the
Evergreen Strip.
I would also like to add here that Mayor Hopkins' comments in support of the
motion and to clarify intent did indeed foretell future consequences. His observation that
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 6
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
"We could see the city's tax base erode at the cost to the (City) taxpayers," and that he
did not feel "...we can tie the hands of future council people to make a prudent, good
planning decision somewhere down the road, as to whether or not annexation is in the
best interest of the city." Further, Mayor Hopkins said "...we may be setting a
precedent for future erosion of the little tax base that we've required the waivers from."
Today, there are proposals to accommodate a new Walmart, Shopko, Ernst
Hardware and 2 branch offices of area lenders. Because of the availability of City Sewer
and lower land costs, there are other retailers considering Evergreen locations.
Together, these developments, when combined with the "strip retail centers planned
adjacent to them, will be the equivalent of at least two Kalispell Center Malls. It took
over four years and a true reduction in rents and property values in other commercial
properties to absorb the Kalispell Center Mall's impact on the market. These new
Evergreen developments, when combined with discount retail located even farther out on
Highway 2 Worth, will indeed have an impact on Kalispell's existing tax base. If you
choose not to annex the area, you deny Kalispell taxpayers any opportunity to realize any
net benefit that may accrue from these new developments, yet they will be asked to help
support them.
If you elect not to annex the Evergreen strip, Kalispell's taxpayers may be
harmed; because history and the economic facts of life tell us that at least for a while,
commercial land and building values and rents in Kalispell's older commercial areas will
go down. So will the tax yields and benefits to those who support services in Kalispell.
It is very clear today ---the owners of commercial property on the Evergreen Strip are
benefiting handsomely because they can now sell their land with the promise of an
affordable sanitary sewer system. In exchange, you have the right to expect them to
become part of the tax base for the City of Kalispell and contribute just pennies per
square foot for the benefits they could not have but for the City's substantial investment
in a treatment facility and willingness to cotntnit a full 22 percent of its future growth
potential to the owners of Evergreen.
Finally, at the Council's meeting of December 6, 1993, staff was requested to put
together the particulars.
B. Intent of the Evergreen Water District
On November 1, 1993, the Evergreen Water District notified the City Council
that it had formed or was representing the Evergreen Coalition which had requested and
was granted until the first of the year to prepare its position on the proposed Evergreen
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 7
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
annexation. On January 3, 1994, William E. Astle, attorney for the Evergreen Coalition,
further requested that the Evergreen Coalition be scheduled to make its presentation prior
to the adoption of a resolution of intent to annex.
The Evergreen Coalition, through its representatives William E. Astle, Jack
Fallon and John Harp, has stated that it is adamantly and aggressively opposed to
annexation of the Evergreen Strip.
Their argument is simple and straight forward: Now that they feel assured that
the City of Kalispell is obligated to provide access to its sewage treatment facility and
is obligated to reserve 22 percent of its future capacity for Evergreen, so that it may
grow and its land owners prosper and develop, they do not want to pay city taxes or
become part of the municipality. It would seem that they would prefer to continue
enjoying the benefits inherent to any business located in or adjacent to an urban center
with a large population base paying for a wide variety of urban amenities which combine
to make the entire urban area livable without requiring their participation in the costs.
Simply stated, the availability of the City of Kalispell's sewage treatment facility
has allowed existing owners and developers to assemble large tracts of rural land and
either sell or develop it to maximum urban rather than rural densities, higher and better
uses which demand municipal services ---particularly sewage treatment. This ability to
attract urban rather than rural development has increased the value of land along the
Evergreen strip significantly.
It is our understanding that the Walmart site sold for almost $3.00 per square
foot, an amount at least triple what rural land would fetch without the benefits of sewer
and the immediately adjacent municipal services and a growing population base of over
12,000 consumers within the city it abuts.
Without Kalispell's 12,000+ citizen taxpayers and its household income, the
Evergreen strip would not be attracting retail giants. While strip property owners are
enjoying significant property value appreciation, in part because of the availability of
sewer, they are unhappy about paying only pennies per square foot to help pay the cost
of maintaining municipal services which they, their employees and their customers
benefit from.
C. EPA Grant Issues
Evergreen Sewage Collection System/City of Kalispell Sewage Treatment Plant
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 8
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
IL Background Chronology of Events
October, 1988
City Council and the Evergreen Water Board begin discussion of the EPA grant
for installation of the sewage collection system. There are three main points for
negotiating - the hookup fee, monthly fees and who maintains the lines. City policy
requires those outside of city hooking into the sewer line pay $500 each plus a 25 %
monthly surcharge. With the number of hookups anticipated in Evergreen, it would cost
nearly as much as building a separate treatment facility, but EPA siting criteria for a
treatment plant dictates either using the existing plant in Kalispell or constructing a new
one in the Fairmont -Egan area.
December 7, 1988
In a letter to Mayor Kennedy, consulting engineer Dave Stahly suggests that
Evergreen cannot afford the hookup fees. He does suggest the two share in "the debt
retirement of the new re -worked city plant, the existing plant indebtedness, and the new
outfall bonded indebtedness." He also suggested the two "share the operation and
maintenance cost of the Kalispell treatment facility," the "City outfall lines used by the
Evergreen effluent," and "Kalispell operate and maintain the Evergreen collection system
including lift stations and pump station, for an agreeable fee."
December 12, 1988
Public Works Director Ken Hammer raises several concerns on the design of the
Evergreen system as to small diameter pressure lines v. large diameter conventional
gravity system. While more funding is available for small diameter, the sewage is
anaerobic and would cause treatment and smell problems at the sewer plant. He also
recommends continuation of City policy of requiring waivers to annexation when utilities
are extended and that the City handle billing and maintenance.
May 4, 1989
Mayor Kennedy sends letter to Evergreen Water Board manager Steve Cheman
with a proposal of conditions on method of setting the rate charged per gallon, the
requirement to obtain waivers of protest to annexation from the entire RSID area, and
a statement of intent the city would not pursue annexation for 10 years.
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 9
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
May 12, 1989
Steve Cheman writes to Mayor Kennedy stating "It is the intention of the Board
of Directors, at this time, to convey to you our acceptance of this proposal as a planning
document, with provision for negotiating the various concepts and details contained
within the proposal." He suggests committees be formed to begin negotiations.
August 15, 1989
EPA issues its Environmental Assessment for the Evergreen Grant. The report
describes the severity of the failed and failing septic systems in the Evergreen area and
the loading of Flathead Lake with those nutrients. It also identifies the conditions under
which the City will accept the effluent from Evergreen, including "The Evergreen district
will be required to obtain from each property owner prior to being connected to the
system a `Waiver of Protest of the Annexation to the City of Kalispell and a Consent to
Withdraw from the Rural Fire District. However the city will not pursue annexation for
10 years.
August 15, 1989
Jack Fallon, Chairman of the Evergreen Water Board, sends City Attorney Neier
a memo summarizing a phone conversation of August 3. The notes outline the
procedures of annexation. Item #6 states, Signing a waiver to protest annexation
eliminates the land owner and all future landowners from the right to protest in person
or in writing at a hearing.
October 4, 1989
Jack Fallon signs the EPA grant for $3 , 872, 600.
October 16, 1989
Jack Fallon sends letter to Mayor Kennedy requesting the interlocal agreement not
include a waiver to protest annexation clause because the EPA requires everyone to
hookup to the sewer in the service area.
October 23, 1989
City Attorney Neier prepares memo to Mayor and Council discussing the
annexation issue. The legal issues of requiring annexation as a condition of accepting
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 10
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
the Evergreen sewage are discussed in detail. Glen concludes the requirement to annex
or sign waivers is complicated by the EPA grant and the RSID, and the decision is a
political one of great importance to the City. (emphasis added)
November 13, 1989
The City Council's Sewer and Water Committee meet with Scott Anderson of the
State Water Quality Bureau, Jack Fallon, Bill Astle and others to discuss the EPA grant
for Evergreen. Mr. Anderson discusses at length the EPA requirement for substantial
hookup of users in the sewered district. Mr. Astle states the requirement for waiver of
annexation prior to hookup is in violation of the grant. Mr. Anderson says that is a
matter between Evergreen and the City of Kalispell. In the feasibility study conducted
by Evergreen, the City's Water & Sewer Committee determined the most cost effective
approach was to enter into an interlocal agreement to use the Kalispell plant. If
Evergreen wants to do something different, they would have to submit a new plan to
EPA. A motion was made by the City's Water and Sewer Committee to recommend to
Council that the waiver of protest not be a condition of the interlocal agreement. The
motion died on a 2 to 2 tie vote. No recommendation went forward to Council.
November 15, 1989
City Attorney Neier memo to Council, he gives a legal opinion that it is Council 's
discretion whether to require the waiver of protest as a condition of providing sewer
service.
February 5, 1990
Evergreen Water Board sends out letter explaining the status of the EPA grant and
the critical nature of getting Evergreen sewered. If Evergreen does not use Kalispell's
plant, it will cost 227 % more per month in sewer fees for Evergreen to build their own
treatment facility. A postcard is included to respond on willingness to sign waiver of
protest to annexation.
March 19, 1990
Public Hearing and City Council Action on the motion discussed in detail
during the introduction. To wit:
Date - ,January 25, 1994 Page 11
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
r 1s r• � • a 1, i t r r . �
• 1�• 1, i 1 1 r •• 1
• 1 .,
i r '• • 1 r • '�� Ir ••
• i FIN 9 XIIA DI1
• 1`: y 1. . r r
April 4, 1990
The City's Sewer and Water Committee forwards recommendation to Council
"That prior to entering into an interlocai cooperative agreement, for the treatment of
waste water, with the City of Kalispell, the Evergreen Water & Sewer District must
obtain from 51 % of the owners of property, including lien holders and contract sellers,
and no less than 51 % of the property, a Consent to Annex Agreement and Notice of
Withdrawal from the Rural Fire District on parcels of land abutting US. Highway No.
2 and Montana Highway No. 35 from the City limits east to those highways' intersection
with (East) Cottonwood Drive.
July 12, 1990
City and Evergreen Water District enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with four
provisions: 1) 51 % of property owners within the described area must sign waivers of
protest to annexation, 2) Creation of an RSID to fund Evergreen's share, 3) Attorney
General approval of the agreement, and 4) Bond Counsel approval of the agreement.
July 20. 1990
Newsletter of Evergreen Water Board concludes the only viable, cost effective and timely
option is to utilize the Kalispell plant. This alone will save the users in the district $14.1
million immediately.
July 25, 1990
Evergreen Water Board passes Resolution #72590 authorizing the execution of the
Interlocal Agreement pursuant to the July 12 MOA.
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 12
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
MemorandumlCity Council
July 25, 1990
City Council passes Resolution 3942 authorizing the execution of the Interlocal
Agreement pursuant to the July 12 MOA.
October 1, 1990
City of Kalispell form of government changes from mayor/council to council/manager
form.
October 2, 1990
City Attorney Neier memo acknowledges that a minimum of the 51 % waivers have been
submitted and verified per Resolution #3942.
October 11, 1990
F" City Manager Williams sends letter to Jack Fallon acknowledging compliance with the
consent forms
October 15, 1990
Attorney General approves the form of the Agreement.
III. Characteristics of Proposed Area of Annexation
A. Land
- 94 properties totaling 11,433,593 sq.ft. (Approximately 262.5 acres)
- 82 separate businesses
- 12 single-family homes
- 1 multiple family dwelling
- 2 mobile home parks
B. Taxation - Current
1. Real Property
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 13
Evergreen Annexation ,
Staff Presentation
MemorandumlCity Council
a. Market value
$ 19,561,011.00
b. Taxable value
759,124.73
C. Tax
281, 986.89
2. Personal Property
a. Market value
$1,889,788.00
b. Taxable value
181,977.80
C. Tax
67,761.86
i
3. Total Current tax*
$349,748.75
4. Current Contributions
a. To Evergreen Fire
$ 6,325.28
b. To Area Wide Planning
1,071.07
C. To Roads
13,922.14
C. Anticipated City Taxes/Assessments
1. Real Property
$ 345,836.00
2. Personal Property
$ 83,058.00
3. City Specials
a. Streets
$ 25,927.61
b. Storm
j 21,698.11
Total
$ 476 519.72
Current Tax - Total*
$ 349,748.75
Anticipated Tax - Total
$ 476,519.72
Date: January 25, 1994
Page 14
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
Net Increase
or $.0108/sq. ft.
D. Costs Of Extending Services
(Particulars discussed in IV, below)
1 Full Time Police Officer
1 Full -Time Firefighter
1 Full -Time Maintenance Worker & Materials
3 FTE - Conrad Complex Management and Maintenance
(self -funding through user fees, etc.)
TOTAL
* Plus any applicable specials (hydrant district, refuse disposal, etc.)
IV. EXTENSION OF SERVICES
$ 126,770.97
Lal�tl
ME
As required by state law, the City will be preparing an extension of services plan
for the area proposed to be annexed. Said plan will include maps which show present
and proposed municipal boundaries, existing streets and utility locations, and general land
use patterns. The plan will also address the city's plans for extending each major
municipal service into the new area. Major municipal services include fire protection,
police protection, public works services, and those services provided by the building,
planning and parks and recreation departments of the city. Both a timetable and a
method of financing services and/or improvements will be included in the extension of
services plan. The following is a brief description of the services the City can offer.
A. Police Protection
The Kalispell Police Department (KPD) can serve the proposed area of annexation
with the addition of one sworn officer to its staff. The same level of service and
protection now provided to the citizens of Kalispell can be extended to the subject area.
The existing highly visible patrol pattern can easily be modified to include the proposed
area, without jeopardizing efficiency or effectiveness. Furthermore, the KPD can
generally provide quicker response times than the Flathead County Sheriff's Department
for service calls in this area. The sheriff's department, with limited manpower, is
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 15
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
charged with law enforcement duties county -wide; by having the commercial strip the
responsibility of the KPD, the county can devote more attention to the rural areas of the
county.
B. Fire Protection
The Kalispell Fire Department, located at Kalispell's City Hall, has 18 full-time
firefighters and three chief officers. The department enjoys a fire insurance rating of
"5", with all areas of the city equipped with hydrants. The department is equipped with
adequate and up-to-date equipment and fire fighting apparatus.
Fire protection is currently provided to areas within the city limits as far as 2.9
miles from the station, with response times of 6 to 8 minutes. Commercial areas,
approximately 2.5 miles to the north and west, can be reached in 5 to 7 minutes.
The proposed area of annexation includes properties located 2.9 miles from the
Kalispell station (intersection of Highway 35 and Cottonwood Drive). Response times
for firefighters and equipment to this area, although equal distance from the station, are
better than those to the north end of Kalispell. The direct route from the fire station to
Highway 2 (Idaho Street) and east to the Evergreen area account for the difference in
response time. Additionally, there are no major intersections to contend with, or steep
grades for the equipment to negotiate. Should the area be annexed, the Kalispell Fire
Department can provide service at the same level as now enjoyed by the citizenry of
Kalispell. The Fire Chief anticipates the need to add one full-time firefighter to the
department when the annexation takes place.
In addition to providing fire fighting service, the city can also provide fire
inspection and prevention services to the proposed area of annexation. Given the
commercial nature of the Evergreen strip, such services are not only appropriate, but also
invaluable to the property owners in the affected area. Inclusion of this area within the
jurisdiction of Kalispell's fire department will also facilitate coordinated building plan
review between the city's fire department and building department. This coordination
will help insure the new construction in this area meets all applicable fire codes.
One service which is already provided to the subject area, at no cost to the
taxpayers receiving the benefit, is the Kalispell Fire Department's ambulance service.
This service will continue to be provided in areas outside the city limits, including
Evergreen, whether the annexation occurs or not.
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 16
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
It is assumed that the annexation will have only limited adverse impact on the
Evergreen Volunteer Fire District as the annexation will involve the detachment of 262
acres, or 1 % of the district's service area of approximately 24 square miles. The tax loss
will amount to $6,325.00, or 8% of their levy of $76,000.00 (1992 figure).
C. Parks Recreation and Public Land
At this time, the Flathead County Parks Department manages and maintains the
Conrad Complex - a multiple use sports complex which represents more than 40,000
visitor use hours per year. The complex is the only major softball facility in Northwest
Montana and southern Canada, and for that reason plays host to not only local teams, but
regional tournaments as well. Also utilizing the facility are a number of flag football,
T-ball, and volleyball teams and leagues.
Upon annexation, and under the management of the City's Parks Department, we
believe that both the physical and fiscal well being of the complex would be enhanced.
According to an analysis done by the city, the full potential of the complex could be
realized through a commitment to management and promotion. Capital improvements
foreseen include paving of the parking areas, underground irrigation, and a limited
amount of new play equipment. Likely financing of these improvements would come
through user fees and management techniques which maximize the use of the facility.
Discussions between the city and county regarding the Conrad Complex are
ongoing, with no apparent barriers to a transfer of management anticipated in the event
the proposed annexation takes place. The complex property is owned by the Conrad
Memorial Cemetery, and leased to the county through the year 2006. Renewal of the
20-year lease does not appear to be a problem.
The county also maintains the landscaped highway medians and islands on
Highway 2 through an agreement with the Montana Department of Transportation.
MDOT has paid to the county $100,000.00 in trust to maintain these areas through the
year 2006. Upon annexation, the county is agreeable to transferring both the
responsibility and the remaining funds to the city with the consent of the state. The
city's parks department would be responsible for the maintenance, with funding available
through the above mentioned trust account.
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 17
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
D. Planning and Building
The subject area is currently within the jurisdiction of the City of Kalispell's
Building Department. Persons seeking building permits within the area being considered
for annexation must at this time visit the City's Building Department to apply for a
permit, then go to the county's health and planning offices for their respective
authorizations, and then return again to the city's office to receive the actual permit. If
the property, were to be annexed, building permit issuance would be streamlined, with
a single stop at the City's Building Department required. Through the building permit
process, new development in the subject area will also have the benefit of plan review
by the City's Site Development Review Committee. This review serves not only as a
means of assuring code compliance, but promotes the general health and welfare of the
community as a whole by encouraging attention to site planning, the natural environment,
creative design, and the character of the neighborhood itself.
When the area becomes part of the City, the City may exercise any and all of its
statutory authority to encourage and stimulate both free enterprise and private
redevelopment. Heretofore, the City could not consider any part of Evergreen in
planning and implementing CDBG, Tax Increment, EPA, EDA, ISTEA or other
programs. Even though sources of funding are cutting back when compared to previous
- years, the City has the ability to combine multiple funding sources to implement projects.
E. Public Works
The City has extended authority for Evergreen to treat its sewage at the Kalispell
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Water and Sanitary Sewer are currently provided by the Evergreen Sewer and
Water District
Storm water improvements are anticipated in the future. A capital improvementsn, including financing methods will be developed.
Approximately 1.43 miles of roadway would be acquired in the annexation.
Maintenance costs (snow plowing, sanding/de-icing, sweeping, patching and all related
materials) are estimated at less than $10,000 annually. No new equipment purchases are
required to serve the area. A single full-time employee will be needed in the public
works department for maintenance.
- Date: January 25, 1994 Page 18
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
Asphalt overlays on the acquired streets are forecast to be needed in the next 3
to 5 years.
Identified roads to be acquired include:
Flathead Dr. / Hwy 2 to Montclair Dr. 0.31 miles
Montclair Dr./ Flathead Dr. to Whitefish River 0.40
River Road/ Hwy 2 to North Bndry of W. Cottonwood 0.07
W. Cottonwood Dr./ River Rd. to SW4SW4 4-28-21 0.13
E. Cottonwood Dr. / Hwy 2 to Hwy 35 0.44
Sager Lane/ 0.08
Generally, solid waste service cannot be provided by the city for five years
following annexation per state law.
V. Discussion of Benefits
Annexation will contribute to the general welfare of the community by providing the
logical extension of services supported by the users of those services.
Annexation will broaden the tax base by growing in a direction that could only occur
with annexation. Without annexation, the City is locked out of growing to the east.
_ Kalispell, as the county seat, is the center of commerce and finance for northwest
Montana. The population and purchasing power has enabled the growth of the businesses
in Evergreen. The annexation will create a "level playing field" between those business
in and out of the City.
Annexation will provide the entire community with better maintenance of streets and
storm drainage. The special assessments are specifically designed to help the citizens
finance those maintenance costs.
The development trends occurring on the strip are changing the character of the area.
_ Those changes should include well planned public improvements as well as aesthetically
pleasing building design and landscaping. It was the Kalispell Area Chamber, the
Kalispell Development Corporation and the City of Kalispell that took the initiative to
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 19
Evergreen Annexation
Staff Presentation
Memorandum/City Council
request Walmart and ShopKo to develop a quality storefront design that will respect and
improve the character of the area. Walmart has honored that request with a uniquely
designed store. hopefully ShopKo will also honor the community's request for good
architecture.
_ The strip is the east entry into the City of Kalispell, and the visual impression it creates
is important to the economic development and health of our area. The City has proven
leadership in advocating for quality development that improves our tax base, consolidates
services, creates jobs, and stimulates a positive image.
Over the past 2 years, the City has reduced the mill levy by 10.5 mills. This has been
accomplished through efficiency in services, increased tax base and economic
development activities.
_ Pressures of growth are causing the City to expand its services in the most logical
patterns. Annexation to the east is a logical step in providing the most cost effective
delivery of services. These issues have been strongly identified in the Cooperative
Planning Coalition's process for finding the Flathead Solution. Instead of spreading the
growth further and further out, and driving the costs of services up, growth needs to be
encouraged close -in to existing services. This will keep duplication of services to a
minimum by providing the ability of in -fill development and the highest and best use of
property.
VI. DECISION MAKING PROCESS
A. Resolution of Intention to Annex is passed by City Council.
Property owners in the area to be embraced are notified.
Notice is published in newspaper.
20 day comment period.
B. Resolution of Annexation adopted by Council.
C. Recommendation for zoning from planning board, following public hearing.
D. Request from the State of Montana permission to annex right-of-way and other
real property owned by the State.
Date: January 25, 1994 Page 20