City still wants to sell reservoir land
Hungry Horse News
Deciding whether or not to sell the Cedar Creek Reservoir property-the city's "most valuable asset" - is only part of the problem facing the Columbia Falls City Council.
Deciding what to do with the $2.23 million the city could make from selling the land must also be addressed.
That money could burn a hole in the pocket of any city council, and present council members say they don't want to see the money spent fixing small problems in the current budget or building new infrastructure that will cost taxpayers in the future.
"It could just end up being a hiccup in the pond," Councilman Tad Rosenberry said.
City Manager Bill Shaw told council members Monday, March 14, an appraiser estimated 360 of the 400 city-owned acres north of town could sell for more than $2.23 million if divided into four parcels.
"There's been a lot of interest in the land," Shaw said.
If placed into a trust, the money could generate about $100,000 a year-money the council could restrict to capital improvement projects or however the council felt appropriate, he said.
"This is an asset that doesn't help our city residents," Mayor Susan Nicosia said. "We need to put the money into a trust fund. We have some really big needs. It comes to a point where some things are not affordable."
The North Fork Road is a natural line for dividing the unzoned city land into four parcels, Shaw said. The city must retain 10 acres south of the dam face that was deeded to the city by the Columbia Falls Aluminum Co.
CFAC recently sold an adjacent 160-acre parcel to the east. Shaw said it is unlikely the former CFAC land or the city-owned reservoir land would see high-density development because of their distance from city sewer.
High-density development is a concern of North Valley Shooting Club representative Paul Murphy. The growing 330-member club operates a shooting range to the northeast of the reservoir that Murphy said might one day be considered a nuisance by new property owners.
Murphy said the city land is also excellent winter range for elk. He suggested the city put a conservation easement on the land before selling it.
A conservation easement would dramatically reduce the value of the land, Mayor Susan Nicosia told the council. The land serves no purpose to the city now that the city water system is served by wells, and because the city pays no taxes on the land, there are no tax benefits to be gained from a conservation easement.
If the land is not divided into lots smaller than 40 acres, impacts on elk will be minimal, Councilman Don Barnhart said.
But what guarantee are there that the land will not be further divided in the future, Councilman Doug Karper wanted to know.
While the council seemed to agree about selling the reservoir land, questions remained about how the sale would proceed and how the money would be used.
"It's too big an asset to sell without taking it to the city residents," Councilman Charlie McCubbins said. He suggested using mail-in ballots to sample public opinion.
Barnhart suggested presenting several alternatives for the public's consideration, but Karper said deciding what to do with the land was the council's job.
"We were elected to represent the city residents," he said. "They don't have the same level of information we have, and they don't spend the time making educated, well-thought-out opinions."
The council considered conducting several public hearings and then making a decision.
"We need to spend the money wisely," Rosenberry said.
Shaw said he believed a trust could be set up that was permanent but not completely untouchable. A situation or emergency could one day arise and the trust fund might prove the only solution, he said.