MINUTES

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

January 15, 2004

Members present: Mary Ann Luedtke, Doug Reoch, Jane Kirby, Tom Hollingsworth, Jim Paulus, Rod Barcklay, Toby Schnuerle. Staff present: Mike Weland.

Members absent: Donna Standley (death in family), Marc Paulson (illness in family).

1. Chairman Jim Paulus called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and called for reading of the December minutes. Barcklay made motion to waive reading and approve the minutes as mailed. Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2. Paulus reopened public hearing on the proposed Bonners Ferry Area of Agreement and read the hearing procedure. Gary Falcon gave an opening statement on behalf of the City of Bonners Ferry. Schnuerle asked for clarification on the annexation procedure. Falcon stated that either the property owners in the area considered could petition the city, or the city could petition the property owners and he explained the annexation process and requirements. Staff informed members a late letter had been received from Hollie Smith, Spokane, and read the letter for the record. Paulus announced that each of the four areas would be discussed separately, and due to the number of people in attendance requested a five-minute time limit on testimony. He then opened the hearing for public comment specific to Area A.

Stan Mastre, who owns 30 acres on County Road 2E, stated that he hadn’t realized it until recently, but his property has been in the existing Area of Impact. He said that because of that, bringing in City electric rather than Northern Lights saved him over 1/3, and stated he has not been faced with additional taxes as a result of being included. He stated he supported the inclusion of Area A.

Jack Tice stated he was uncommitted on Area A, but asked Falcon if there were plans by the city to provide services other than electricity to Area A. Falcon stated at present only electric service was anticipated.

Gerald Higgs, Wildhorse Lane, said he was strongly opposed to expansion of the area of impact. He said that he owns property in an area that was recently annexed, and said that promises that taxes would be raised by $50 per $100,000 assessed value publicized in the newspaper prior to annexation proved false, saying his taxes increased by $467.52 in 2003. He said that the city promised to install streetlights and has not done so, that the quality of winter road maintenance has declined drastically since annexation. He said the city sells water both metered and unmetered, hence can’t set accurate fees based on usage. He stated that the annexation boundary made no sense, as one absentee-owned parcel that accesses from inside city limits and within the Marx subdivision was excluded from annexation.

Bill Michalk, County Road 60, asked Falcon if the proposal to expand the area of impact was to annex, Falcon stated it was not the city’s intention at this time. Michalk asked why the city was looking nearly five miles north of the existing city limit. Paulus explained that Planning & Zoning looks at areas where growth is likely to occur, and that the Three Mile area has always been considered a key area with the potential for commercial growth. Michalk said he remained skeptical, and expressed concern that the city was seeking only to expand the tax roll.

Paulus asked Falcon to speak on Area B. Falcon stated that utilities were currently extended to the city limit and there was potential they could be extended into the proposed area. Barcklay asked if that area was protected by a dike; it was stated that Drainage District 1 served that area. Barcklay asked if the city was willing to fund a portion of the maintenance for that dike. Falcon stated he was not able to answer that question. Michalk said the dike was the responsibility of the district.

Paulus called for comment on Area B. No one spoke regarding Area B.

Paulus asked Falcon to speak on Area C. Falcon stated the area extended along County Road 38A to the Mission, and said water is currently provided by the North Side Water/Sewer District, and that there are ongoing discussions of merging the district with the city, in which case the city would take over maintenance. Paulus called for public testimony.

No one spoke in favor of or non-committed on Area C.

Gerald Higgs said he has talked to board members of the North Side Water/Sewer District and learned that there are serious questions regarding merging because they are not able to receive assurances that funds set aside for improvements will only be used within the district. He said there are a lot of collateral issues with water. Barcklay noted this area was also protected by dikes, and asked who would maintain those dikes if the city were to annex. He said he was concerned that the city would consider annexing an area in a flood plain. Falcon explained the FEMA program. Michalk stated that the property owners in the district owned the dikes and were under no obligation to provide flood protection to the City of Bonners Ferry.

Paulus called on Falcon to speak on Area D. Falcon stated the City Planning and Zoning Commission looked at that area as one where growth is most likely and which could benefit from city services. Luedtke questioned Falcon regarding a letter from Chuck Roady regarding his concern that only a portion of the property he owned was under consideration for inclusion. Falcon stated that specific parcels weren’t considered, but said he saw no problem including the entire parcel. Reoch asked about the city’s water supply, and asked if the city had the capacity to expand or if government grants or funding would be sought. Falcon stated Three Mile Water serves the area. He said that the timing of the proposal was in no way related to work currently underway on providing sewer service to the area or other projects. He stated studies have been done on the sewer system. The city lagoon could take an increase of 15%, and there is sufficient area available to increase this if needed. Schnuerle asked who would pay for these upgrades; everyone in the city or only those in the impact area? Falcon said he could not answer that, but said most cities were unwilling to expand any services beyond their limits, and not likely to provide services in an area not at least identified in an area of impact agreement. Luedtke asked if annexation could be considered outside an area of impact, Falcon said it could not.

Paulus opened the hearing for public comment. No one spoke in favor of the proposal. Jean Plato, who is uncommitted, asked Falcon if, when considered for annexation, it would be in whole or in part. Falcon stated that the city couldn’t “jump,” but had to expand contiguously from existing city limits. He affirmed that before any of the newly proposed areas could be annexed, the existing area of impact would have to be annexed. Plato asked if being included in the area of impact imposed any additional restrictions on development; staff state the county retains control, but provides the city with the entire application packet to ensure they’re informed and have the opportunity to respond.

Jack Tice, County Road 30, speaking in opposition, stated that since the West Side fire the city water supply has been in danger and that the city has been asking North Bench and other water associations for water. He stated that since the existing area of impact agreement had been entered into in 1997, nothing has happened with the exception of the Marx Subdivision, and he said he didn’t feel the city had plans to annex. He stated the city is having problems serving their existing customers, and stated that there was no plan to expand city electric beyond city limits because of an agreement with Northern Lights.

Gerald Higgs asked if the Kootenai Tribe owns land within Area D; he was answered in the affirmative. He asked what would happen if the tribe moved the Inn to that parcel, or builds develops a mall? He asked if the city and county could lobby the legislature to seek federal funding to offset the taxes lost on tax-exempt tribal lands.

Steve Shelman, who lives south of Bonners Ferry and owns a business in Area D, stated he was opposed to expansion because adequate service currently exist. He stated the only reason for the city to make such a proposal was for the purpose of eventual annexation, and stated it was unlikely any services would be provided until annexation occurred. He questioned whether adding additional services would attract more businesses, saying that having those services available in the city hasn’t exactly sparked an economic boom within the city. He stated that growth would occur regardless of being in the area of impact or not, and stated that there was little gain to be acquired from being included in the area of impact except the possibility of increased taxes with little or no benefit.

Harold Waddell, who lives in the north half of section 11, questioned the need of including that area as it was predominantly residential. He stated he didn’t feel it should be included.

David Byler, County Road 13, stated he was opposed because it provided property owners no benefit and brings the potential for something he didn’t want, which is annexation by the city.

Ken Ewing, Chute Canyon Estates, said he wasn’t directly affected by the proposal, but he said he feared the city creeping closer to where he lives. He stated there could only be one reason for expansion of the area of impact, and that was a prelude to annexation. He stated he didn’t want to live in the city and would hate to move again. He stated such annexation would bring increased taxes without any true benefit to the property owners.

Gerald Higgs stated that until the city gets a grasp on what it currently has, there should be no expansion. He stated that the dike issues were a concern.

Luedtke questioned whether providing sewer would actually increase economic development, and said she was concerned about a city-owned airport. Falcon stated the county would retain ownership of the airport. She asked why the city, county and other entities couldn’t work together in seeking rural development grants, and said inclusion in an area of impact could hurt that possibility. Patty Perry, speaking on behalf of the Kootenai Tribe, said the city, county and tribe have looked into grants to expand sewer service and studies have been conducted on whether the city lagoon could handle the additional flow. She could not say whether or not it would bring economic growth. She said the city has concerns about expanding services outside areas not tied to an area of impact. She stated that the City of Moyie Springs and the School District have also been involved in the Economic Development Committee.

There being no further public comment and no closing statement by Falcon, Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members.

Kirby stated the city was required by Idaho law to approach the county to negotiate the area of impact, and said she felt the recommendation to county commissioners should be to ignore the proposal.

Barcklay stated that significantly more people opposed the proposal than favored it. Paulus said he was surprised at the lack of public involvement given all the publicity.

Reoch said that there was a lot of opposition specific to Area D, but said there was little opposition against Areas A and B. He stated that saying no to the entire proposal did not seem wise.

Luedtke said that opposition to Areas A and B weren’t specific, but rather more of a sense of concern that this opens the door for annexation. She said she can see where Areas A and B “fit in” for a bigger Bonners Ferry, but not Area D.

Paulus said that Three Mile is the primary commercial area in the county, and said he feels the city is reaching for a larger tax base. Reoch asked if there was any guarantee that businesses would come in if there were sewer at Three Mile, saying he had doubts that it would.

There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a motion.

Luedtke made motion to vote on each section separately. Reoch seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 5 to 1.

Reoch made motion to recommend the inclusion of Section A as depicted. Luedtke seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 5 to 1.

Kirby made motion to recommend the inclusion of Section B as depicted. Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 4 to 2.

Kirby made motion to recommend that Section C be excluded. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Kirby made motion to recommend that Section D be excluded. Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

3. There was no old or unscheduled business.

4. There being no further business, Barcklay made motion to adjourn. Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.