Houston area brought into city limits

Along the east shore of Whitefish Lake, 43 acres of land in the Houston Drive area will now become part of the city of Whitefish.

Whitefish City Council Nov. 6 approved annexation of the properties despite hearing continued objections from property owners in the neighborhood.

Mike Talbot said a majority of his neighbors oppose being forced to join the city. He raised concerns saying the city had failed to inform property owners of how the annexation would impact them in terms of an increase to their tax bills or when services such as city sewer might be brought to the neighborhood.

“Simply put I’m not sure what the annexation stands to bring to our neighborhood,” he said. “The lack of information has caused confusion.”

The city says the 49 parcels should bring in about $96,000 in additional property tax assessments.

Councilor Andy Feury took issue with claims that the city is annexing properties to gain revenue and also noted that it is the homeowners responsibility to contact the city to find out how the annexation might impact their tax bill.

“Tax revenue is the last thing we look at when it comes to annexation — that’s not a huge amount of money when you look at the overall size of our budget,” he said. “This area has been considered for annexation for almost 20 years. We, as citizens, do have the responsibility to find out what’s happening to us.”

In response to a question about the process for annexation, city Finance Director Dana Smith said in the past annexation notices to homeowners have gone beyond what’s required by state law for the wholly surrounded method of annexation by providing information on how annexation would impact the homeowners taxes.

“There was times we did provide that information, but we’re not required to provide information for the wholly surrounded method,” she said. “We had prepared that information so it was available if they had requested it.”

Though a handful of homeowners spoke during the public hearing opposing annexation, two owners did send letters to the city prior to the meeting saying they support the move.

Alan and Allison Beougher wrote a letter to the city in favor of the annexation.

“As it stands now the neighborhood is a checkerboard of county and city properties,” the Beoughers wrote. “It’s been a challenge to keep up with the county’s ever-changing zoning and laws affecting our properties. Ascertaining what agency to call for information or help has also been problematic.”

Property owners in the area two years ago sued the city claiming the city could not use the wholly surrounded method of annexation, which under state law allows the city to annex property without the property owners having the right to protest or prevent the annexation when access to the properties can only be gained by crossing through the city. Flathead District Court ruled in favor of the city and the Montana Supreme Court upheld the decision ruling against the property owners’ argument that the land is not wholly surrounded because it is possible to reach the properties without crossing city streets, including traveling over state and county roads and across Whitefish Lake, and that the city may annex more than one property at a time based on state law.

Ahead of last week’s meeting, Whitefish attorney Sean Frampton, who represents a group of homeowners opposed to the annexation, sent a letter to the city alleging that the property owners were not given sufficient notice because information sent to them did not include the city’s extension of services plan. He also says the city failed to follow it own precedent of updating its plan for the Houston area, noting that when it annexed properties on West Lakeshore last year it provided owners an opportunity to comment on the extension of services plan.

The city is “not following its own precedent and is unfairly treating one group of citizens worse than another group,” Frampton said.

One of the major objections raised by his clients is that the city does not provide water and sewer service to the properties being annexed.

Eleven of the 51 properties in the annexation area currently receive city utility services.

Frampton notes that the city does not plans to extend services, “Instead, it intends for the homeowners to extend the services ‘at homeowner expense or via a special improvement district.’”

The city as part of its resolution for annexation does set out a time-frame for bringing existing conditions in the area into compliance with city standards. It also notes that property owners would be required to pay standard connection costs when connecting to city water or sewer systems.

Public Works Director Craig Workman said the city is currently reviewing its extension of services plan and expects to hold a work session with Council on it in early 2018.

City Council in 2014 placed the properties along Houston Drive at the top of its priority list for possible annexation. The city attempted unsuccessfully to annex Houston Drive in 1983 and 2000.

The city in 2016 annexed 25 properties along West Lakeshore Drive and also annexed a smattering of properties surrounded by the city that totaled 83 acres of land.

The city has cited a need for annexation in a few areas adjacent to city limits as a way to protect the water quality of Whitefish Lake and also to have homeowners pay for the city services they already use.