C.Falls sends planning message to commissioners

The Columbia Falls City Council sent a message on planning to the county commissioners on Monday night: We're OK with a change to the interlocal agreement if it allows for automatic boundary extensions when the city grows, but can't we just go back to the way it was?

A planning process that began last spring and peaked with a Nov. 29 public hearing shrank the city's planning jurisdiction by half but granted the city full planning, zoning and subdivision authority.

Since the county has control outside that boundary, the effect was to nearly sever cooperative planning work.

The city approved the interlocal agreement presented at the Nov. 29 hearing, sending it back to the county for final approval.

When commissioners acted on it Dec. 21, they eliminated automatic boundary extensions that provide a one-mile reach beyond newly annexed land.

Instead, they called for annual discussions between the city and county to include an agenda item "to agree to any jurisdictional area boundary changes, justified by annexations that extend the city's boundary."

It was not what the council had agreed to, City Manager Bill Shaw, and he was not comfortable recommending they approve the amendments.

By the end of the year, Shaw and Acting County Administrator Myrt Webb struck a compromise, and Webb pledged to work with commissioners on developing language to reflect it.

It calls for annual action to "automatically extend the boundaries of the jurisdictional area based on the annexations the city has completed during the previous year. The intention of this boundary adjustment is to maintain the one-mile city jurisdictional area."

Commissioners were leaning toward accepting this wording, Shaw said.

But Shaw also said Tom Jentz of the Tri-City Planning Office said the city might want to take a wait-and-see attitude until after the county's new administrator, planner and commissioner are settled into their posts. The county may shift in philosophy, Jentz told Shaw, and be more willing to return to a 4.5-mile jurisdiction in place for the past three decades, with cooperative planning powers.

"He emphasized the city didn't ask for this," Shaw said. "His biggest concern was that it would cut off all relationship with the county, and that's not healthy. It would be more sensible to continue with what we had before."

Reverting to the initial jurisdiction would mean the city forfeits some absolute control, he said, but retains a say in planning for the outlying areas.

An issue of contention all along has been whether the city should help guide growth on the fringes of its planning area - and which direction that growth will go.

"I think we should put this on hold until they get everything in order again," council member Tad Rosenberry said, drawing agreement from colleagues Don Barnhart and Jolie Fish.

"What if they consider that suggestion [on Thursday] and say, 'Fine, we'll do what we did with Whitefish,'" and restrict planning to city limits, Mayor Susan Nicosia countered.

In the end, the council directed Shaw to let the commissioners know the city will sign the revised agreement if it includes the compromise wording, but to make it clear that the city would be happy to return to the initial planning boundaries.

Commissioners have scheduled signing of the document for 9 a.m. Thursday.

Reporter Nancy Kimball can be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at nkimball@dailyinterlake.com