At its March 6 meeting, the Hamilton City Council unanimously approved, upon first reading, an ordinance establishing the procedure for adoption of impact fees. The motion to approve it was amended to include a review of the ordnance by the Finance Committee before the second reading. According to the city's administrative officer, Dennis Stranger, the process would require a Resolution of Intent to actually adopt the impacts fees. This is scheduled for March 20. A public hearing is scheduled for April 17, for the council to hear public comment on proposed water and sewer rate hikes as well as establishing impact fees for water, sewer, police and fire services. Stranger said that work on proposed transportation impact fees was still incomplete. He said that the target date for implementation of the new rates and impact fees was May 1, 2007.

At a public hearing held immediately prior to the regular City Council meeting, the council heard from about 26 members of the public over the issue of whether to adopt the proposed impact fee ordinance. Comments for and against the proposal were about evenly divided.

Many of those opposed to the adoption of the ordinance were concerned about the negative effect it would have on their business and on business in general. Some felt that it would drive new business growth out of town. Some did not object to the idea of impact fees but were highly critical of the amount of the fees being discussed, calling them exorbitant and unrealistic. The accuracy of the data upon which they were based was questioned.

John Bartos, CEO for Marcus Daly Hospital, for example, said that the use of urban hospital figures to gauge the transportation impacts here was not fair. He compared the impact fee being assessed for law enforcement in Missoula, $302.00 per thousand square feet, to the proposed Hamilton rate of $885.35 per thousand square feet, and called the latter "out of line." He said that if the currently proposed impact fees were applied to all four phases of the hospital's proposed emergency services' improvement and construction, it would boost the cost of the project by about $1.1 million.

Chip Pigman, president of the Bitterroot Builders Association and a member of the Ravalli County Planning Board, expressed his opposition. He said that the costs imposed by the proposed fee structure, if passed on to the buyer, would increase the cost of a single family residence by 165 percent. He said it would mean an increase of 160 percent in apartments and commercial buildings and an increase of 400 percent in medical/dental buildings. He was critical of the data used in establishing the fees, especially in the area of transportation impacts, and said that it was too much for the business community to absorb overnight. He said a phased implementation would need to be considered, as well as lower fees.

Perry Ashby, developer of the 600-plus-lot Aspen Springs subdivision, which was recently denied by the County Commissioners, expressed "vehement opposition" to the proposed ordinance. He said that his industry, which provides for the critical public need for shelter, was "under attack."

"I've seen this across the nation," said Ashby. "It sends a distinct message that this community does not particularly welcome housing or commercial development." He said that it will push that development out of the city. "If these fees are implemented to the level in the pamphlet here, it will be challenged legally and that's going to be exhaustive. Our industry, the building industry, is extremely tenacious," said Ashby. Ashby is currently suing Ravalli County over the denial of his Aspen Springs subdivision application.

The Bitterroot Chamber of Commerce and other individual business owners expressed opposition as well, suggesting that the ordinance and related fees would have a negative impact on business, especially small, locally owned ones.

Many of those who spoke in support of the ordinance said that impact fees were not only rational, but necessary to address the current inequity in which a lot of the cost incurred by new development is being subsidized by the public. The taxpayer, they say, is footing the bill for development in the city, by paying for the impact on local services and roads. Assessing an impact fee on new development, they argue, is the only way the taxpayer can be relieved of absorbing those costs.

"Right now, people already established in the community pay the cost of this new development," said Suzanna McDougal.

President of Bitterrooters for Planning, Stewart Brandborg, echoed McDougal's remarks. He said that unplanned development was "taking a toll" on the valley, threatening the quality of life here, the agricultural land and open space, the beauty of the place. He said that good planned development was needed to preserve these values. He referred to an economic study done of the county by Larry Swanson, which concludes that the valley's setting and the amenities offered here are the base of the valley's economy. Brandborg said that to preserve the values and nurture our economy, good planned development is required and that, in turn, requires impact fees for its implementation.

"The developers simply must pay their fair share," said Brandborg.

Several speakers then reiterated this refrain, one after the other. Jack Saunders added, "At least the businesses have the opportunity to use it as a tax write-off. Citizens don't."

Contracts for feasibility study approved

The Council also agreed to sign three separate contracts in order to conduct a feasibility study of the potential effects of annexing the proposed Flat Iron Subdivision, east of town, into the city limits. The matter has been controversial among the council members and the vote came down to a three to three tie, along the usual divide. Councilors LaSalle, Steele, and Hendrickson voted to approve the contracts. Councilors Harbaugh, Scott, and Sutherland voted against it. Mayor Jessica Randazzo then broke the tie by approving the contracts.

Dennis Stranger told the council that the Flat Iron developers had submitted a request for annexation back in December. At that time he told the Council that the City was under no obligation to consider the application. He expressed no opinion on the matter and said that a lot of information would be required to assess the impacts, pro and con, of such an annexation. It is complex to assess, in part, because the subdivision is situated a few miles from the current city limits. The Mayor, after a split vote on the council, gave Stranger the go ahead to look into it.

He returned to the council with a recommendation to pursue a feasibility study at the cost of the developer. It would involve signing three contracts: one with the Flat Iron developers stating that they will pay $33,600 to hire consultants to analyze the feasibility of the annexation of the subdivision; one with HDR Engineering to study the traffic, water, wastewater, drainage and access questions; and one to BBC Consulting to prepare a fiscal impact analysis of the effects of the demand for services created. This is basically what the Mayor and council approved at the meeting.

The public comment prior to the decision was overwhelmingly against approval of the contracts. Eight out of every nine people who spoke, spoke against approval of the contracts.

The four people who spoke in favor of the contracts, one of whom was the developer, all stressed that the developer was footing the bill for the analysis and that there were no strings attached, that it did not commit the city to any future decision about annexation.

"It's just an examination of options," said developer Ken Madden. "No decision. No commitment."

Many of the thirty-two people who spoke against the contracts expressed concern that, despite the wording in the contract to the contrary, it would mean giving tacit approval to the annexation. Some said it appears to be an attempt to end run the Interim Zoning restriction that currently limits subdivisions in the county to one dwelling per two acres by incorporating into the city of Hamilton.

Many questions were raised about the desirability of the subdivision itself, the traffic problems on Golf Course Road that would be aggravated, the dangerous proximity to the airport, and the fact that the parcel of land lies about three miles from the city limits. People pointed to the recent extension of the water and sewer north of town which was done to encourage growth in that direction. Others suggested that it made more sense to examine and possibly pursue the annexation of the many parcels of land that currently lie within and are totally surrounded by the city before examining something so far away. Most called it a waste of valuable time and energy on the part of city officials over something that is not in the public interest to begin with.

Several people who spoke out against the contracts also expressed frustration with a process that, in their opinion, precludes real dialogue and essentially leaves the public out.

Lyle Paelin told the council that if it failed to deny the contracts and went forward with consideration of annexation, the citizens would "have no other option than to carry forward a petition to mandate that the city be barred from considering any annexation plan until the citizens of the city are given the opportunity to design their own destiny through public participation and comment." He said that, as a last resort, petitions for recall would also be mounted against any approving councilors.

Following public discussion, Councilor Mike LaSalle moved to approve the contracts, saying that it was "just a feasibility study, a fact finding mission" with all the risk entirely on the developer who is paying for it.

"The risk is not on the city," said LaSalle. He said that the council should listen to the advice of its professional planner, who recommended the contracts, and when the study is done examine the data. That way, he said, a decision can be made based upon empirical data rather than basing it on emotion.

Councilor Hendrickson said that she really supports planning and is "not going to turn away from anything that could help me make a good decision about planning."

Councilor Scott said, "I heard the public and it is clear." He said approving the contracts now was a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. He said that the city got a planner in order to invest in a planning effort and move away from simply reacting to individual development proposals that would come along. "Now the Mayor and staff are back to working with individual developers on their projects," said Scott.

Councilor Sutherland agreed, saying that it made absolutely no sense to be putting such a proposal ahead of other planning efforts. "It isn't something the city should be involved in,� said Sutherland.

Councilor Steele said that he didn't know if Flat Iron should be annexed into the city or not but that to even consider the option would require that information like this be gathered.

Councilor Harbaugh expressed concern about some tacit liability being assumed on the city's part by entering into contracts with the developer to get the study done. She noted that the developers of Flat Iron are currently suing the county over the Interim Zoning regulation. "Now you're saying they won't sue us? I don't need to sign a contract to consider data," said Harbaugh.

Mayor Randazzo called herself "a thinker" who needs information on which to base decisions. "I have a gut reaction," she said, "but I don't know if it's a good idea or not. The only way I will is to get more information."

Randazzo also emphasized that the contractual arrangement for the study did not obligate the city in any way or commit it in any way to annexation.

"We can all speculate," she said, "but here we have a chance to get the information and the cost will be borne by the developer. If there is a tie, I will support this."

LaSalle expressed agreement with the mayor.

Scott said that the citizens would see it as approval of the Flat Iron annexation.

Harbaugh called it a "slap in the face" to county residents who voted for Interim Zoning.

"We're not going to listen to the citizens?" she said.

RML to be backbilled for city water, again

The Hamilton City Council unanimously agreed to send the Rocky Mountain Laboratory a bill for $637,511.84 in uncollected water use and connection fees. This won't be the first time. The council agreed in October 2004 to backbill the lab for base rates for water and sewer use that went uncollected from September 1996 to October 2002. The lab answered that invoice in February 2005, asking that the request for payment be dropped, "out of fairness to the lab."

Since then, Sutherland told the council, nothing more has been heard and nothing has been done.

"It's time for the city to act," said Sutherland. He made a motion to send another invoice demanding full payment. He said if the lab doesn't believe that full payment is deserved, it should pay under protest and a decision would be made by an independent 'finder of fact' like the courts.

Councilor Steele said that since the city already sent an invoice that the city administration should be following up on that.

Councilor Scott agreed, saying that further action seemed to be required. He reminded the council that during this time the city residents have experienced a 91 percent increase in their base rates.

"That's about $150 per resident," he said. "That's outrageous." He said that the federal government needed to pay what it owed.

Councilor LaSalle was concerned about city liability in the matter and possible litigation.

Councilor Hendrickson said, "Let's just send the bill. It would be really nice to just get this matter cleaned up. Let's send the bill and have the administration focus on it."

Sutherland said, "Court is a good place to be. You operate under rules and the truth comes out. There is no opportunity to hide, stonewall, or simply scoff. They have to present a case."

After considering an amendment and an amendment to the amendment, it was decided unanimously to send the invoice and give the lab 30 days from the date of the letter to respond.

Commissioners cut department budgets to meet cost of voter mandated changes

By Michael Howell

Internal Auditor for the county, Klaryse Murphy, explained to Ravalli County Department heads last Friday exactly what kind of bullet they were going to have to bite in order to meet the unbudgeted costs associated with the results of the November election in which voters mandated a five-member county commission.

Those costs have been estimated at a total of $102,600 for this fiscal year. That includes the cost of two elections totaling $70,000, plus the salaries, benefits and travel expenses of two commissioners for one half month, estimated at $6,000, plus an additional $9,100 for the added computers and other equipment, plus the cost of remodeling to create two new offices, $13,000, and finally the cost of one full time administrative assistant for three months, $4,500.

Cushioning the blow to county departments, however, by offsetting some of those costs were a $27,500 draw from the Clerk and Recorder's Capital Improvement Fund, and a $40,000 draw from the Montana Department of Family Services budget.

That left $35,100 to be gleaned from other county department budgets. It was decided to cut every department by an equal percentage across the board (except for the 911 emergency call center), to meet that demand. Murphy informed every department head to make whatever reallocations are required in each of their budgets to absorb a .251 percent reduction in their budgeted funds for this year. She said that capital improvement funds could be used.

Commissioner Alan Thompson noted that only 20 percent of the county's operating funds come from taxes. The rest, he said, came from grants and fees.

County Attorney George Corn said that fees, in some cases, represented an untapped resource for funds. He said it made sense to consider raising fees to meet the cost of providing some county services that are currently not meeting their own costs, before cutting services across the board.

Corn pointed to two cases. He said that the County Planning Department, which primarily processes subdivisions, could be charging higher fees to cover its costs. Right now, he said, its fees cover less than 50 percent of the cost of the office.

"Subdivision fees paid by those who use the process and benefit from it should cover most of the cost of this office," he wrote in a typed submission.

The Planning Department revenue totaled $234,318 in 2006. But its operating costs were $475,254. The costs exceeded the revenue in the department by $240,936 that year. This could increase to a $366,762 deficit for 2007. This year the Planning Department revenues are estimated at $172,285, while the operating costs are estimated to total $539,047.

He noted that the airport, which services only a small portion of the county residents, also can't meet its own expenses. In 2006, the airport took in $29,295 but it cost $70,268 to operate. That means that all county taxpayers in general are left to make up the $40,973 difference. In 2007 revenues are estimated at $48,891, while operating expenses are estimated at $95,800. That leaves $46,900 to be made up by county taxpayers from the general fund.

"In regard to the airport," wrote Corn, "the commissioners can charge reasonable rates for leasing the land, as well as other fees. The Airport should at least be self supporting."

Road and Bridge Department Supervisor David Ohnstad agreed with Corn.

"Why should the county be serving developers at below cost?" he asked.

County Planner Karen Hughes said that her department was in the process of bringing forward some recommended fee changes.

Commissioner Thompson said, "This is not the place or time to discuss this. I would like to interject a positive note." He talked about his recent trip to Washington D.C. and the possibility of getting a one-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools Act which brings in about $365,000 with about $210,000 dedicated to the county road department. He also noted that there may be an 18 percent cut in the PILT funds, which are currently about $275,000.

The biggest cuts, because they were based on a percentage of the department's total budget, came in the departments with the biggest budgets. The Sheriff's Office, with a $4.1 million budge, the largest of any department, took a $10,296 cut. The $2.8 million Road Department budget was cut by $7,108. The Commissioners, Treasurer, Clerk and Recorder, County Attorney, Fair, Clerk of Court, Juvenile Detention, and Planning all took cuts ranging from $1,000 to $1,700. The rest, Justice Courts, Administrative Services, Disaster and Emergency Services, Public Health Nurse, Environmental Health, Information Technology, Bridge, Weed, Airport, GIS and Extension Office all took cuts of less than $1,000.

First countywide zoning meeting held in Florence

By Michael Howell

In its fledgling efforts at trying to involve the public in the voter-mandated development of a countywide zoning ordinance, the Ravalli County Planning Department sponsored the first of three planned public meetings to introduce the public to the concept of countywide zoning, and solicit members of the public to participate on local committees involved in the process. Allen Bjergo facilitated the meeting in Florence that was attended by about 100 citizens.

County Planner John Lavey went over the history of planning efforts in the county from the adoption of the Growth Policy in 2002 to the present. He went over the Zoning Work Plan that was adopted by the Commissioners in January, 2007. That plan outlines and schedules the steps involved in completing a comprehensive countywide zoning ordinance, regulations, and map by July of 2008. It involves two stages: one would establish density, use, setbacks, and heights countywide; the second phase would involve developing more detailed regulations for specific areas.

He said that no work has begun on the actual mapping but that all other aspects of the process had already begun and were in progress.

A first draft of zoning regulations was begun in October and is in progress, as well as the public involvement plan. He said that a land capability and suitability analysis was also in progress.

The goals of the whole process, he said, were to separate incompatible uses, to increase predictability in development, to identify limitations, manage growth, and allow for community decisions in the process.

Some members of the public that were present signed up to participate on the committees being established to participate in the process. People separated into Florence, Lone Rock, and Stevensville groups to form committees. Planning Committees will be established in every district in the county, including Victor, Corvallis, Hamilton and Darby.

Future informational meetings are planned at the Darby Clubhouse, 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14, and in Hamilton, at the First Interstate Building at the Fairgrounds, at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 21. More meetings are planned in the spring, late spring and early summer.

If you have any questions or want to participate, contact the Ravalli County Planning Department at 215 S. 4th Street, Suite F, Hamilton MT 59840, phone 375-6530 or fax 375-6531. E-mail planning@ravallicounty.mt.gov. or go to the web site: www.ravallicounty.mt.gov/planning.

Bipartisan CQL endorses candidates

By Michael Howell

Citizen volunteers of the recently organized Bipartisan Campaign for Quality of Life (BCQL) held a press conference last week to announce the candidates that they have chosen to endorse following systematic interviews with and evaluations of almost everyone in the running.

Some 30 citizen volunteers, broken down into groups of three to five individuals, conducted interviews, according to the campaign's co-chairs, Marilyn Saunders of Hamilton and John Carbin of Stevensville. They termed the effort "a tremendous display of grassroots organization by volunteers from each of the valley's districts." The effort was made, they said, to provide the public with essential first-hand assessments of the candidates for the five commissioner posts. Candidates were asked to respond to the same set of 20 questions and then scored numerically in terms of the answers given.

"We feel this effort can be a turning point in the valley's political life, calling for a change of leadership in county government that will truly represent the concerns of most of the people in the valley," said Carbin. "Citizens of the Bitterroot have become acutely aware of the fact that big developers, both local and out of state, are having their way with the current county commission and planning board in pursuit of multi-million dollar profits at the expense of the overall quality of life."

Carbin noted that recent events in the valley have demonstrated that county residents are fed up with the current situation and are demanding change.

The BCQL identified five areas of concern that motivated their efforts to make changes for the better:

• Meeting head-on the threat of a multitude of mega-developments in the county that are degrading the quality of life in the Bitterroot due to unplanned growth.
• Providing for county wide zoning and planning through implementation of the initiative that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in the last election.
• Countering the current trend of favoritism and disingenuous tactics that have given developers free hand in overriding the concerns of citizen organizations and neighborhood groups who have fought unsuccessfully to protect their homes and private property, wells, prime farmlands, and streams from developers.
• Dealing with conflicts of interest within the present three-member county commission and the county planning board, which largely represents developers, real estate interests, and those tied to development.
• Providing fresh leadership in the newly mandated five-member commission such that they may move aggressively to implement zoning regulation, insure proper direction of future development free of manipulation by in and out of state interests and protect our quality of life for our children's children.

BCQL has endorsed the following candidates:

District 1
Jim Rokosch (D), Steve Hall (R)

District 2
John Meakin (D)

District 3
Phyllis Bookbinder (D), Chuck Stranahan (R)

District 4
Kathleen Driscoll (D), Rick O'Brien (R)

District 5
Carlotta Grandstaff (I)

Elections in Districts 2 and 3 have been placed on hold by Judge Larson pending outcome of the trial over the ballot issue that enlarged the commission to five members.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2006 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney