HomeMy Public PortalAbout1999.03.03 ANN - Williamson - Bear Basin De-AnnexationCITY OF MCCALL
Community Development Department
216 East Park Street
P.O. Box 986
McCall, ID 83638
FAX COVER SHEET
1:So inn
DATE: March 3, 1999 TIME: 11 . ° AM
TO: Lauren Meyers PHONE: (208)
Hall, Farley FAX: (208) 395-8585
FROM: Andy Locke
City Planner
PHONE: (208) 634-7142
FAX: (208) 634-3038
RE: Williamson De -Annexation
CC:
Number of pages including cover sheet: 2
Message
Lauren,
Here's the map we spoke of. I will get tie assesment information tod'y,
and fax along to you.
If you have any questions, please give me a call. You canaso reach me
by e-mail at: planneramccall.id.us . Thanks,
Andy
MAR— 3-9U WED 14:48
3/03/99
PM0 00
PARCEL MASTER INQUIRY lei : 05 : 43
r,ui
PARCEL: RP M00000062550 A
NAME/ADL"RE;S
paILLLAMSO.1, MAX R DARLA
ox, 661 _ _.
F9=M8
F17=DD
F23=AC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
MCCALL ACREAG1
NW/4 OF GOV' T. LOT 3
S6 T_&AI R3E
CODE AREA 300 OWNER CODE
..._._._.w.—_ _ ___ „ .._._ ._ PARC TYPE LOC CODR
MCp.ILL --� lD 8 6 ? 8., ` EFFDATE 1012 9 8 UPDATE
PREY PARCEL RPM00000Q 2..c•r'A.
VALUE H4 MRKT IO EXMP CB MRKT MITER
5810
CAT RY QUANTITY UN
6 19a$ 10uuu AC
ToTALS
FKoym
P2=Si
F3 :CT
1000o 5810
ENTER NEXT PARCEL NUMBER RP
”--Exit 1,1)=SS F6=NM F7=LG
F13=TM fi$=HS F20=Srch F22=EU
Post -it" Fax Nc to 7671
Co./Dept. , '/ G�"`
Phone # n u. CC
Date -2,7
From
Phone # g 2_, y1�,1� 5
Fax # `�"'A
A
11.1111111
r f111
111411
111
diiimmosstrA
■.c.e.�r ririifi i�::iia �jesea
6�"eeaa eeeeese ae.�AE�
OWN MN
aool MEM
ggro"9
010
Ve:::99
Reeeeee
MIRO
seared
WARM
sa:9Iaaaeaaa®K eQy
aaattNI �aeeaaeei
o��yaaas�aee,.gaaa�
easertmedede4ue�Joae ���
.il0w as
ruing
SONIUM
e6a0C�edM w
emoiveNrAii
MINE
cows
rot
9
Ll�l ;�l.l
UMW
e
Max Williamson
Darla Williamson
P.O. Box 661
McCall, Idaho
Petitioners
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF VALLEY, STATE OF IDAHO
Petition of Max L. Williamson and Darla S. Williamson )
to detach lands hereinafter described from the Corporate )
Limits of the City of McCall. ) Case No. 98-182C
Petitioners, )
vs. ) SUBPOENA
City of McCall, a Municipal Corporation, )
)
Respondents. )
)
THE STATE OF IDAHO TO: ANdrelt) L.p
You are hereby commanded to appear before Judge George R. Reinhardt, III, of the above
entitled court at the courtroom of the Valley County Court Annex, 550 Dienhard Lane, McCall,
Idaho, on the 17th day of Marchal,, 1999, at 5'� j a.m. as a witness in the above entitled action.
You are further commanded to bring with you the following items and documents:
„firdt
You are further notified that if you fail to appear at the place and time specified above, that
you may be held in contempt of court and that the aggrieved party may recover from you the sum
of $100.00 and all damages which the party may sustain by your failure to attend as a witness.
Dated this V day of j-�,,- , 1999.
By order of the court. " LELAND G. HEINRICH
CLERK
Clerk
De
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
., t c 1Le,..7 BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS:
That I am not a party to this action and that I am over the age of 18 years. On the LeHl
day of f'rlifimv,i 1999, I personally delivered a true and correct copy of the a ached subpoena
upon c` O .
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED to before this /() day of -�",c,� /,u.CL+-��� 1999.
Notary Public
Residing at:
RT-ute-0 . os`da�ot)
"
O R D I N A N C E N O . 3 0 8
A N O R D I N A N C E A N N E X I N G C E R T A I N L A N D S A N D T E R R I T O R Y
T O T H E C O R P O R A T E L I M I T S O F T H E C I T Y O F N c C A L L ;
P R O V I D I N G B E N E F I T S , R I G H T S A N D O B L I G A T I O N S O F S U C H
A N N E X E D T E R R I T O R Y ; ' A M E N D I N G " T H E C I T Y M A P O F - Z O N I N G
A N D C L A S S I F Y I N G . S U C H L A N D S U N D E R . T H E Z O N I N G O R D I - -
N A N C E ; P R O V I D I N G T H A T A . M A P O F S U C H A N N E X E D A R E A
B E P R E P A R E D A N D F I L E D W I T H T H E C I T Y C L E R K ; R E Q U I R -
I N G A C O P Y O F . T H I S O R D I N A N C E A N D M A P T O B E F I L E D
W I T H T H E C O U N T Y A S S E S S O R A N D C O U N T Y R E C O R D E R O F
V A L L E Y C O U N T Y , ' S T A T E O F I D A H O , A N D W I T H T H E S T A T E
T A X C O M M I S S I O N O F I D A H O ; A N D P R O V I D I N G A N E F F E C T I V E
D A T E . .
B E I T O R D A I N E D B Y T H E M A Y O R A N D C O U N C I L O F T H E
C I T Y O F M c C A L L , I D A H O :
S e c t i o n 1 . T h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e d l a n d s a n d
t e r r i t o r y l o c a t e d i n V a l l e y C o u n t y , I d a h o , w h i c h l a n d s a n d
t e r r i t o t y a r e a d j a c e n t o r c o n t i g u o u s t o t h e C i t y o f M c C a l l
a n d h a v e b e e n b y t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r r e q u e s t e d t o b e a n n e x e d
t o t h e C i t y o f M c C a l l , b e , a n d t h e s a m e a r e h e r e b y a n n e x e d
t o t h e c o r p o r a t e t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s o f t h e C i t y o f M c C a l l :
S o u t h w e s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e N o r t h e a s t ( Q u a r t e r ( S W % N E % ) ,
N o r t h e a s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e N o r t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( L o t 3 ) ,
N o r t h w e s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e N o r t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( L o t 4 ) ,
S o u t h w e s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e N o r t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( L o t 5 ) ,
S o u t h e a s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e N o r t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( S E % N W % ) ,
N o r t h e a s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e S o u t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( N E % S W % ) ,
N o r t h w e s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e S o u t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( L o t 6 ) ,
S o u t h w e s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e S o u t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( L o t 7 ) ,
S o u t h e a s t Q u a r t e r o f t h e S o u t h w e s t Q u a r t e r ( S E I 1 S W 1 / 2 ) ,
a n d t h e W e s t H a l f o f t h e S o u t h e a s t Q u a r t e r ( W 1 i S E 1 / 2 ) ,
o f S e c t i o n S i x ( 6 ) , i n T o w n s h i p E i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) N o r t h
o f R a n g e - T h r e e ( 3 ) E a s t , S . M . , a n d N E % o f N E % ( L o t 1 ) ,
S E A o f N E % , E a s t i o f S E % , S e c t i o n 1 , T o w n s h i p 1 8 ,
N o r t h o f R a n g e 2 E a s t , B . M .
S e c t i o n 2 . T h a t f r o m a n d a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s
O r d i n a n c e , a l l p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e d w i t h i n a n d d e s c r i b e d i n
S e c t i o n 1 h e r e o f , a n d a n n e x e d a s p r o v i d e d b y s a i d s e c t i o n ,
s h a l l b e s u b j e c t t o a l l t h e s t a t u t e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e C i t y
o f M c C a l l a n d a l l o r d i n a n c e s , r e s o l u t i o n s , p o l i c e r e g u l a t i o n s ,
t a x a t i o n a n d o t h e r p o w e r s o f t h e C i t y o f M c C a l l , a n d a l l
the persons and property within the present corporate terri-
torial limits of the City of McCall.
Section 3. That the map of zoning of the City of McCall
be and hereby is amended to include the above described lands
which such lands are hereby classified as Zone "F", Planned
Development District.
Section 4. That the City Engineer of McCall, his agent
or such person as appointed by the Council, is hereby directed
to lodge and file with the City Clerk of McCall within ten (10)
days after the passage and approval hereof a map prepared in
draftsmanlike manner which shall plainly and clearly designate
the boundaries of the lands and territory annexed, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 1 hereof.
Section 5. That the City Clerk of McCa11 is hereby
directed to file within ten (10) days after the passage and
approval hereof a copy of this Ordinance and the map, as
prepared and lodged with him by the City Engineer in accord-
ance with Section 4 above, with the County Assessor and County
Recorder of Valley County, Idaho, and the State Tax Commiss-
ion of Idaho as provided by Section 63-2215, Idaho Code, and
Section'50-223, Idaho Code.
Section 6. 'That this Ordinance shall be in full force
and effect from and after its passage, approval and publica-
tion and after the City Clerk of McCall has complied with the
provisions of Section 50-223, Idaho Code.
Passed and approved this 2nd day of August, 1971.
,p0/66Afzi b_ra
or
Des&naies /a/70/s armexecs✓ 6y
/he Ci(y o/' /1rl'Coy// by..,drelMcw7ce
No. Joe .
•
•
LEGEND
'STRUT] FORMING URBAN EXTENSION] OF •
FEOLNAL-AID, PRIMARY STATE AND US. NDOTES
DRINFNNED
GRAVEL OR STORE
RttURIRUUR RDAFACCO•LORTK
PAYED MEET
OTHER CITY STREETS
I WOR WAWA CREATED
]WIFAED-Innd.WHAtl
ODRMOKO
W
d
T. 18 B19N.,}i
DCDCAltDinnt4n1
EA, FEDERAL -AID FAIRUR /PRICY
EAR 'CORRAL -AIR RCRARSAAt/EIRMI
GA GI.MOMRERED ROR[l
rQi BYRE RURRCIED ROUICS
O PRt CEREu
RALPH A. TUDOR (1902-1963)
LOUIS W. RIGGS
STANLEY H. FROID
CARL W. OTTO
DAVIS C. TObTHMAN
ROBERT N. JANOPAUL
Mr. Bill Kirk
City Clerk
McCall, Idaho
Dear Bill:
TU OR ENGINEERING COMEANY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1802 NORTH 33RD STREET
BOISE, IDAHO 83703
TELEPHONE (208) 343-4669
MAIN OFFICE
149 NEW MONTGOMERY ST.
• SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105
TELEPHONE
(415) 982-8338
CABLE "TENCGO"
September 23, 1971
401-71138
Enclosed are eight copies of the map showing lands annexed by
Ordinance No. 308.. We are also sending the township plat in case one of
the agencies requests that particular map.
We hope these will meet everyon.e's requirements.
Very truly yours,
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
Leslie L. Ankenman
LLA :rnr
Encls:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of McCall,
Idaho, will hold a public hearing Monday, August 2, 1971, at
the hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M. at the City Hall in McCall
Idaho, to consider the following matters:
1. Amendment of Section 3-4-1 of the Village
Code of McCall, Idaho, to add Zone "F"
Planned Development District.
2. Annexation to the corporate limits of the
fCity'sof-;Mtcail:;t Idaho, tbf the .follgw-ng
described lands:
Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
(SW%NE%);
Northeast
(Lot 3);
Northwest
(Lot 4);
Southwest
(Lot 5);
Southeast
(SE1/4NW g) ;
Northeast Quarter of
(NE1/4SW1/4);
Northwest Quarter of
(Lot 6);
Southwest Quarter of
(Lot 7);
Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
(SE%SW1);
and the West Half of the Southeast Quarter
(WISE!), of Section Six (6), in Township
Eighteen (18) North of Range Three (3) East,
B.M., and NE a of NE% (Lot 1) ;
SEA of NEi, East 1 of 5E1/4, Section 1, Town-
ship 18, North of Range 2 East, B.M.
3. Classification of the lands hereinabove de-
scribed as Zone "F", Planned Development
District.
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
the Southwest Quarter
the Southwest Quarter
the Southwest=?,Quarter
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that all interested persons
invited to attend and be heard at such public meeting.
Dated this 8th day of July, 1971.
•
City Clerk
ar e
CITY OF MCCALL
Community Development Department
216 East Park Street
P.O. Box 986
McCall, ID 83638
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: July 27, 1998 TIME:
TO: Dave Bieter
FROM: Andy Locke
P&Z Administrator
RE:
CC:
I�V
10:03 AM
PHONE: (208) 331-1800
FAX: (208) 331-1202
PHONE: (208) 634-7142
FAX: (208) 634-3038
Williamson disannexation
Number of pages including cover sheet
Message
Dave,
I'm hoping to bring this matter to the Council at the August 13 meeting. It
appears that the property is not bounded by the City on 4 sides, with
USFS land to the north. It looks like IC 50-225 permits, but does not
require, the City to disannex property. Though they do not specifically cite
the section, they make allusions to IC 50-230. Under that section, do you
think the Williamsons would be successful?
If you need more info, give me a call. You can also reach me by e-mail at:
planner@mccall.id.us . Thanks,
Andy
Max Williamson
Darla Williamson
P.O. Box 661
McCall, Idaho
Petitioners
IN TNF DISTRICT COTJRT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF VALLEY, STATE OF IDAHO
Petition of Max L. Williamson and Darla S. Williamson )
to detach lands hereinafter described from the Corporate)
Limits of the City of McCall. )
Petitioners, )
v. )
City of McCall, a Municipal Corporation, )
)
Respondents )
)
Case No.
Petition to Separate
Land from the Corporate
Limits of the City of McCall
Petitioners, Max L. Williamson and Darla S. Williamson, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-
226 petition the court for the separation of agricultural lands from the corporate limits of the City of
McCall. In support thereof, Petitioners allege as follows:
1. The City of McCall is a Municipal Corporation.
2. Petitioners are the legal owners of the following described property, containing ten acres,
located within the corporate limits of the City of McCall, Idaho, to wit:
NW 1/4 of Government Lot 3, of Section 6, Township 18 North
Range 3 East, B.M., as shown on the official plat thereof in the
Office of the Valley County Recorder, Valley County, Idaho.
There are no railroad or canal right of way upon or over such land.
1
3. Petitioners acquired said property in 1976. Said property has exclusively been used for
agricultural purposes and continues to be so used.
4. Said property does not receive sufficient special benefits to justify the retention of said land
within the corporate limits of the City of McCall.
5. Detachment of the land from the corporate limits of the City of McCall would not
materially mar the symmetry of the City of McCall.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request judgment as follows:
For a judgment and decree detaching the aforementioned described property from the
corporate limits of the City of McCall.
Dated this day of September, 1998.
Max L. Williamson, Petitioner
Darla S. Williamson, Petitioner
�wT
2
Max L. Williamson
Darla Williamson
P.O. Box 661
McCall, Idaho 83638
October 1, 1998
Mayor Kirk Eimers and City Council
Members Ralph Colton, Marilyn Arp,
Alan Muller, and Ray Venable
McCall City Hall
P.O. Box 986
McCall, Idaho 83638
Dear Mayor Eimers, and City Council Members
Ralph Colton, Marilyn Arp, Alan Muller,
and Ray Venable
Enclosed is a copy of the petition Max and I will be filing to have our property
removed from the city limits of McCall. We regret that we must take this action and we
regret that we must name the city in this lawsuit. Because the property is located within the
city limits, the city is considered to be a real party in interest pursuant to Chaney v. Village
ofMiddleston, 58 Idaho 291 (1937) and must therefore be a named defendant.
We camebefore you several weeks ago pursuant to I.C. 50-225 requesting the city
to exercise its discretion based on the merits and allow our agricultural timber property to be
removed from the city limits. This was denied on a 3-2 vote. We are now proceeding under
a different code section which allows a property owner to have property removed from the
city limits by court order if certain conditions are met. The petition we will be filing in court
is pursuant to I.C. 50-226. To prevail on this petition we must prove the following:
1. The property is at least 5 acres.
2. It is used exclusively for agricultural purposes.
3. The land does not receive sufficient special benefits to justify the retention
of the land within the corporate limits of the City of McCall.
4. Detachment of the land from the corporate limits of the City of McCall
would not materially mar the symmetry of the City of McCall.
The statute allows any person to file an objection or protest to our petition at least
two days before the day for the hearing. We doubt any person will do that. However, since
1
we are required to name the city as a defendant, it is not clear to us whether or not the city
will contest or object to our petition. It is our understanding that the three council members
voting against our request did not address the merits, but voted against us because they did
not want to set a precedent. It would be extremely helpful to me to know where the city will
stand on our petition before it is filed. Because of my judicial position, the district judge
normally hearing cases in Valley County will likely not want to hear the petition if it is
contested. It is possible other judges will feel the same. When the petition is filed, the court
clerk must schedule a hearing within thirty days and Max and I must publish notice in the
newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. Because of the thirty day time
limitation and the publication of notice, problems in assigning a new judge to hear the case
can occur should a judge disqualify himself or herself after assignment to the case. It would
therefore be helpful if I could advise the trial court administrator at the time a judge is
assigned to hear this case whether or not the petition will be contested by the city.
In order to assist you in making a decision on whether or not to contest our petition,
it is our intention to prove the following at the hearing:
1. The property is ten acres.
2. It is used exclusively for agricultural purposes.
Idaho Code 22-4502 defines an "agricultural operation" to include "any facility for the
growing, raising or production of agricultural ... crops ... or agricultural commodities."
This definition is not too helpful in defining agriculture. In workmen compensation cases, our
Supreme Court in determining whether or not an employer is engaged in agricultural pursuits
considers the traditional meaning of agriculture as it is commonly understood and looks at the
unique circumstances of each case. See Tirma v. Kosterman, 106 Idaho 728 (1984) and
Lesparance v. Cooper, 104 Idaho 792 (1983). An accepted definition of agriculture is:
The term agriculture is defined in 2 C.J. 988, as follows: The art or science of
cultivating the ground, especially in fields or large quantities, including the
preparation of the soil, the planting of seeds, the raising and harvesting of
crops, and the rearing, feeding, and management of livestock, tillage,
husbandry and farming. See Mundell v. Swedlund, 59 Idaho 29, 80 P.2d. 13
(1938).
Webster's defines a crop as "a plant or animal or plant or animal product that can be grown
and harvested exclusively for profit or subsistence." See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary, at pages 65 and 308 (1989). In the taxation of forest lands, Idaho Code 63-1705
(2) refers to timber as a crop.
We believe the circumstances in our case are unique and come within the definition
of agriculture. Prior to our acquiring the property in 1976 and for several years thereafter,
sheep grazed on our property. Additionally since we acquired the land we have sold a timber
2
crop from the land on three separate occasions. We have tilled the soil in the planting of
approximately 200 tree seedlings and at the time of planting in the fall we watered each
seedling with water carried to the property. We have thinned young trees and transplanted
others to more open areas. After the timber crop is harvested, we have raked the area where
it was harvested and piled and burned the remains from the harvested crop. All these acts are
traditional conduct one would commonly expect in agriculture. If we chose we could likely
harvest a small crop of timber each year as the timber is in various stages of development.
However, that would not be economically feasible to do so.
Since we acquired this property, we have applied it to no other uses.
3. The land does not receive sufficient special benefits.
In Hammond v. City of Chubbuck, 95 Idaho 618 (1973) the evidence presented at the
hearing on a petition to have property separated from the city was that the petitioners land
received only those benefits received by the general citizenry. The court stated:
Concerning the question of special benefits, respondents testified that they
received no special benefits from the City of Chubbuck, and further that they
did not even receive city sewer and water service. Appellant would have us
hold that police and fire protection are sufficient "special benefits" within the
ambit of the statute to justify retention within the city. However, every
municipality provides some sort of police and fire protection, and if we were
to hold that such protection constitutes a "special benefit" it would preclude
the courts from ever granting a petition for detachment.
The court noted that in other cases it had found city water service, city water and drainage
of a wet marsh, fire hydrants in close proximity to petitioner's land, sewer line extending to
the property line, street lights and road maintenance, and construction of a road not to
constitute sufficient special benefits.
Although our land receives city police protection, this is not a special benefit to the
land but a general benefit received by property owners and residents of the city. During the
winter the police cannot do normal patrol to our property because the road is not plowed into
our property. There are no city roads to our property. We access our property from State
Highway 55 and a forest service easement. Water and sewer are not provided to the land.
4. Detachment of the land from the city would not materially mar the symmetry of
the City of McCall.
Symmetry requires not only regularity in the shape of the city, but also a measure of
consistency, harmony and uniformity of regulation. See Ramey v. City of Blackfoot, 99 Idaho
264, (1978).
3
It is obvious in looking at the city map that removal of our property would not mar
the physical symmetry of the city.
In regards to whether or not removal of our land would interfere with the city's ability
to have a measure of consistency, harmony and uniformity of regulation within the city it is
important to understand that our property is in the city limits only because a developer
requested the property be annexed for a proposed P.U.D. After the property was annexed,
the developer abandoned the project. This is not property that would have been otherwise
annexed. If you visited our property, it would be apparent that there is insufficient cause to
retain this property in the city. We will be requesting the judge to visit the property. The
property is not in an urban area and is considerable distance away from a platted subdivision.
The speed limit is 55 miles per hour on highway 55 at the forest service road turnoff to our
property. The east, south and west boundaries of our property are bounded by like property
in ten acre parcels, and those parcels are bounded by like property of other large unplatted
lands. The ten acres to the west have been used for horse pasture and continue to have been
fenced for that purpose. The property off the southwest corner of our property is fenced and
is currently used for horse pasture and a residence. To the east towards the city is 40 acres
of land owned by the Idaho Conference of the Methodist Church that is not in the city limits
and is used for a church camp. The north boundary of our property is bounded by U. S.F. S.
property, not within the city limits.
I believe the foregoing gives you a good idea of what we will be presenting at the
court hearing. I would greatly appreciate if you could please advise me as soon as possible
of whether or not the city will be contesting our petition. We would also appreciate being
informed of the date this matter is placed on the agenda for discussion. At this time we do not
anticipate appearing at any further meetings of the council. I believe we have nothing further
to offer. However, we would be happy to attend any meeting if you believe that would be
helpful.
Sincerely,
Darla Williamson
4
City Manager
216 E. Park Street
P.O. Box 986
McCall, Id 83638
208-634-7142
Fax
City of McCall
To: Dave Bieter From: Brian D. Olson, City Manager
Fax: 208.331.1202 Pages: 7
Phone: 208.331.1800 Date: 11/02/98
Re: Deinhard vs. City of McCall CC:
Urgent For Review Please Comment x Please Reply Please Recycle
Council voted not to incorporate. Please defend.
McCALL
September 16, 1998
Max &t Darla Williamson
P.O. Box 661
McCall, ID 83638
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: request for exclusion from the City of McCall
Mr. &t Mrs. Williamson:
At their meeting of August 27, 1998, the McCall City Council considered your petition
for exclusion from the City of McCall. The property for which the Council gave
consideration is described as:
The Northwest I/4 of Government Lot 3, Section 6, Township 18 North, Range 3 East,
B.M., as shown on the official plat thereof in the office of the Valley County
Recorder, Valley County, Idaho.
The City of McCall chose not exclude your property from the City limits.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the number listed below. I can also
be reached by e-mail at the following address: planner®mccall.id.us . Thanks.
Sincerely,
Andy Locke,
Planning &t Zoning Administrator
216 East Park Street • P.O. Box 986 • McCall, Idaho 83638 • (208) 634-7142 • FAX (208) 634-3038
MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE CAPITAL CENTER, SUITE 910
999 MAIN STREET, BOISE, ID 83702
TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 FAX: (208) 331-1202
DAVID H. BIETER
SUSAN E. BUXTON'4
JOHN J. MCFADDEN't$
MICHAEL C. MOORE
PAUL A. TURCKE
*Also Admitted in Oregon
$ Also Admitted in Washington
MONA DOBARAN MACK
Of Counsel
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY PREPARED FOR THE USE OF
OUR CLIENT, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PRIVILEGE
August 21, 1998
Andy Locke, Zoning Administrator
City of McCall
P.O. Box 986
McCall, Idaho 83638
Re: Max and Darla Williamson's Request to Exclude Property from the City Limits
Dear Andy:
You have asked us to review a letter from Judge Darla Williamson and her husband
Max Williamson regarding exclusion of ten acres of property located within the McCall City
limits. They described the property as:
The Northwest 1/4 of Government Lot 3, Section 6, Township 18, North Range
3 East, B.M., as shown on the official plat thereof in the office of the Valley
County Recorder, Valley County, Idaho.
The Williamsons have requested exclusion pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-225. That
section, as you have indicated, states that "the boundaries of any city in this state may be
altered and a portion of the territory thereof excluded therefrom, and the councils of such cities
are hereby granted power to enact ordinances for that purposes." Idaho Code § 50-225. The
section goes on to discuss the liability of residents to pay outstanding indebtedness of the city
or any bonded or other indebtedness of any improvement district. However, as to the reasons
for excluding territory, Idaho Code § 50-225 is silent. That is, it appears the City Council's
discretion under Idaho Code § 50-225 is very broad. Moreover, the one case interpreting this
section, Greer v. Lewiston Golf Country Club, 81 Idaho 393 (1959), decided under a previous
law, does not address the advisability or the reasons for excluding property. As you correctly
point out, there is no requirement that property be excluded; by using the words "may be
altered" the discretion appears to be the Council's.
Andy Locke, Zoning Administrator
August 21, 1998
Page 2
The Williamsons also refer to the separation of agricultural lands which is addressed in
Idaho Code §§ 50-226 through 230. It does make sense for a landowner to first ask that the
City initiate its own alteration of the boundary since the City initiated process is much simpler.
Although there is no requirement that the property owner first request that the City initiate the
boundary alteration, if the City does not do so, Idaho Code § 50-226 requires filing a petition
in district court. Once a petition is filed, Idaho Code §§ 50-226 through 230 govern the
process by which the district judge reaches a decision. Idaho Code §§ 50-231 and 232 address
bonded indebtedness and streets, neither of which can be affected by the separation. Finally,
Idaho Code § 50-233 allows for the City or any person aggrieved to the judgment to appeal the
district court's decision to the supreme court.
There are four elements that must present in order for a district judge to grant a petition
for separation. Those elements are: (1) that the parcel of land contain at least five acres; (2)
that the lands included within such tract be used exclusively for agricultural purposes; (3) that
such lands not receive sufficient special benefits to justify the retention of said lands within the
corporate limits of the city; and (4) that by detachment the symmetry of the city not be
materially marred. Idaho Code § 50-230.
The Williamsons have not filed a petition addressing these elements, but they
apparently want the City to grant a petition without the formal process. We review these
provisions because it stands to reason that, unless the City is inclined to grant the petition
summarily, if the City finds that the provisions of Idaho Code § 50-230 would more than likely
be met, we should not spend resources on the petition process. We would not be certain that
the Williamsons would proceed to district court if the City does not exclude their property on
the City's own motion, but considering the provisions of Idaho Code § 50-230 seems
warranted in any situation where the exclusion of the territory is not readily apparent.
Of the elements reviewed above, the Williamsons have alleged that all those elements
have been met. We question whether there are really no City services provided to the parcel.
The Williamsons have stated that there are no City streets, nor City services of any kind. The
City staff should be able to tell whether there are any "special services" provided to the land.
However, perhaps more importantly, the element that appears to present the closest call
would be whether the parcel is "used exclusively for agricultural purposes." The Williamsons
have stated that the property has been logged in 1976, 1990, 1996, and that approximately 200
seedlings have been planted on the property. Such facts still may not show that the property
has been used "exclusively for agricultural purposes." In discussing these provisions with
Mike Moore of our office, the agricultural requirement presents the biggest hurdle to most
applicants. Unfortunately, the Idaho cases considering this section do not present much
assistance, since these more recent cases only address the issues.
Andy Locke, Zoning Administrator
August 21, 1998
Page 3
However, in Ramey v. the City of Blackfoot, 99 Idaho 264, 580 P.2d 1289 (1978), the
supreme court gave perhaps its most thorough consideration of the symmetry requirement and,
after reviewing the previous cases of the court, found that symmetry means more than just
regularity in the shape of a city. The court reviewed three previous Idaho cases, Lyon v. City
of Payette, 38 Idaho 705, 224 P. 793 (1924), Maxwell v. City of Buhl, 40 Idaho 644, 236 P.
122 (1925), and Balm v. Village of Parma, 49 Idaho 40, 286 P. 24 (1930), all of which found
detachments, at least in part, to fail to comply with the elements of the statute. Indeed, in the
Ramey case, although the specific property was used exclusively for agricultural purposes, the
applicant's pasture land was "surrounded by land being used in a variety of ways, from
stockyards to homes, but all the uses related to the existence of the community." Ramey, 99
Idaho at 267. The Court held that symmetry, in addition to the regularity of shape, also
involves "the ability of the municipality to regulate adjoining lands whose use affects the
quality of life in residential and business districts of the community. Symmetry thus, requires
not only regularity in the shape of the City, but also a measure of consistency, harmony, and
uniformity of regulation." The Court found that not only did removing the property create a
"hole" in the city of sixteen acres, but separating the parcel denied the city supervision over
lands surrounded by and in close proximity to businesses and homes. Since the record also
showed that the area was being developed by a variety of uses that may not have been entirely
compatible, it would be inappropriate, the Court held, to deny the city supervision of a part of
that area. Ramey, 99 Idaho at 267.
Accordingly, although it is difficulty from reading of cases to get a bright line rule for
when separation is warranted, the Williamsons' property presents at least two potential
problems. First, growing trees to the extent accomplished on the parcel may not be
sufficiently agricultural to comply with that requirement. Second, although the information we
have would not be enough to make a decision on symmetry, symmetry as interpreted by the
courts means more than just the shape of a city, but concerns whether eliminating the property
would have an effect on the ability of the city to adequately regulate the adjoining area, the
cases going so far as to view symmetry as broadly as the "quality of life" for those in
surrounding areas.
We hope this analysis proves helpful and welcome any questions.
Sincerely,
MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED
David H. Bieter
DHB : de
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
Number
Date August 27, 1998
City Of McCaII
PO Box 986
McCaII, Id 83638
ITEM
INFORMATION
SUBJECT:
Max & Darla Williamson -
Petition to be excluded from
the City of McCaII
Original Agenda Date & Bill No.
Department/Committee/Individual
Initials
Remarks
A
Mayor / Council
p
City Manager
p
City Clerk / Treasurer
R
City Attorney
0
City Engineer
V
P & Z Administrator
al -Originator
COST IMPACT: ($72)/yr taxes
A
Public Works
FUNDING SOURCE: General
tax revenue
L
Golf Course
S
Parks & Recreation
TIMELINE: Immediate
Other
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
Max & Darla Williamson have asked that the City of McCall exclude their property from
our corporate limits. I have asked City Department Heads to comment on the impacts.
The Public Works Department provides no services. The Police Department provides
services (and will likely continue to provide services, even if the City excludes the
property, due to Valley County Dispatch). Community Development provides the same
services, whether in the City or County. Finance & Administration provides services
associated with the City being the Williamson's local government, including elections.
Recreation provides services, as does the Library.
The 10 acre parcel is valued at $5,810 as agricultural land. This generates $72 annually
for the City in tax revenue. However, at some point the property will be developed and
will convert from an agricultural to a residential assessment value which will likely be in
excess of $200,000. Such a property generates $2,500 for the City — though the level of
services provided increases as well. If the City disannexes the parcel, it will be difficult
to annex it when the owners decide to develop the parcel.
Contrary to the Williamson's assertion, the City does provide services to the property —
police, recreation, library, administration, and planning & zoning/building. Further, the
annexation process, should we decide to do so in the future, is arduous and expensive.
Finally, the City should not disannex property unless it is certain that the property will not
come into the City limits in the future.
From the attached legal opinion, it appears that the City is not required to exclude the
property from our boundaries.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider the request of the Williamson's.. Based on the letter from our legal staff, the
City is within its rights to retain the parcel. I would recommend .doing so, based on the
current and likely future services to be provided to the parcel.
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date
Action
McCALL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
July 24, 1998
Max Et Darla Williamson
P.O. Box 661
McCall, ID 83638
RE: request for exclusion from the City of McCall
Mr. Et Mrs. Williamson:
At your request, the City of McCall is looking into excluding your property from our
city boundary. I apologize for the delay, but expect the City Council to take the
matter up at their August 13, 1998 meeting.
I have requested that our legal counsel research any procedural requirements the city
must meet, and asked various departments to consider the ramifications of excluding
your property.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the number listed below. I can also
be reached by e-mail at the following address: planner@mccall.id.us . Thanks.
Since
ndy Loc
Planning a Z• g Administrator
216 East Park Street • P.O. Box 986 • McCall, Idaho 83638 • (208) 634-7142 • FAX (208) 634-3038
Memorandum
To: Department Heads
From: Andy Locke, PBtZ Administrator
Date: July 24, 1998
Re: Request for de -annexation
As per the attached letter, the Williamsons have requested that we exclude their
property from the city limits. Please let me know what services you provide (or don't
provide) to the property and its residents.
If you have any questions, give me a call or stop by my office. Thanks.
Idaho Statutes
http://www.idwr.state.id.us/cgi-bininewidst?sctid=500020029.K
Idaho Statutes
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
TITLE 50
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
CHAPTER 2
GENERAL PROVISIONS -- GOVERNMENT
-- TERRITORY
50-229. SEPARATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS -- HEARING. The hearing herein
provided on said petition shall be held within the corporate limits of the
city in which said lands sought to be detached are situated. The regular
district court reporter shall reduce to writing the testimony and evidence
introduced, the same as in trial of civil actions. The judge of such court,
either before or after said hearing, may view the lands and premises sought
to be detached, as well as other lands or property within the corporate
limits of such city, which might in any way be affected by the granting of
such petition, and lands on the outside of such city in the same vicinity
or locality in which the lands sought to be detached are situated, and may
consider such conditions as he finds in connection with the evidence
introduced on the hearing, in making and arriving at his final decision and
determination of the matter.
No tract or tracts of land shall be detached from any city which by such
detachment, would materially mar the symmetry of such city.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I.C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of
Idaho's copyright.
1 of 1 7/27/98 9:44 AM
Idaho Statutes
http://www. idwr. state. id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=500020026.K
Idaho Statutes
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
TITLE 50
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
CHAPTER 2
GENERAL PROVISIONS -- GOVERNMENT
-- TERRITORY
50-226. SEPARATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS -- PETITION. The owner or
adjoining owners of any platted or unplatted tract or tracts of land
containing not less than five (5) acres, included within the corporate
limits of any city in this state and used exclusively for agricultural
purposes, provided, however, if there is upon or over such tract or tracts
of land a railroad or canal right of way, such tract or tracts shall, if no
other reason exists, be deemed to be used exclusively for agricultural
purposes, within the meaning of this section, may petition the district
court of the county in which such tract or tracts of land are situated for
a judgment and decree of the court detaching such tract or tracts of land
from such city.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I.C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of
f
Idaho's copyright.
1 of 1 7/27/98 9:42 AM
Max Williamson
Darla Williamson
P.O. Box 661
McCall, Idaho 83638
Phone: 634-4360
June 19, 1998
Mayor Kirk Eimers and City Council
Members Ralph Colton, Marilyn Arp,
Alan Muller, and Ray Venable
McCall City Hall
P.O. Box 986
McCall, Idaho 83638
re: exclusion of territory from the city limits
Dear Mayor Eimers, and City Council Members
Ralph Colton, Marilyn Arp, Alan Muller,
and Ray Venable:
We own ten acres of property located in the city limits. of McCall. It is particularly described
as follows:
NW 1/4 of Government Lot 3, of Section 6, Township 18 North Range 3 East, B.M.,
as shown on the official plat thereof in the Office of the Valley County Recorder,
Valley County, Idaho.
Pursuant to Idaho Code 50-225 the boundaries of a city may be altered and a portion of the
territory thereof excluded therefrom by ordinance of the city council. Enclosed is a copy of Idaho
Code 50-225 for your review.
We are requesting that you alter the boundaries of the city by excluding this ten acres. Our
property is located approximately one half mile on Brundage Mountain Lookout Road off of State
Highway 55. This property has never been developed and is and has been used exclusively for
agricultural purposes. Trees are grown and harvested on said property, with timber being logged
from said property on or about 1976, 1990 and 1996. Approximately 200 seedlings have also been
planted on said property. Access to this property is by State Highway 55 and a U.S.F.S. road
easement. The land adjacent to the north boundary is owned by the federal government and is not
located within the city. Detachment of the land from the corporate limits of the city would not
materially mar the symmetry of the city. There are no city roads or city improvements or benefits
provided to this property by the city. Before we acquired the property in 1976, the property was
annexed into the corporate limits of the city at the request of a developer who intended to develop
the property and other adjacent properties into a planned unit development. This proposed
development did not occur and the property remained in the city limits.
Please let us know whether or not you need to meet with us to act on our request. We can
also give you a personal tour of the property. We would appreciate hearing from you as soon as
possible.
Thank you for your time and attention.
2
Sincerely,
Max Williamson
Darla Williamson
50-225 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 528
effective [May 6, 1970]. [1967, ch. 429, § 17, p. 1249; am. 1967, ch. 432, § 1,
p. 1418; am. 1970, ch. 47, § 1, p. 97.]
Compiler's notes. Section 2 of S.L. 1967,
ch. 432 declared an emergency. Approved
April 12, 1967.
DECISIONS UNDER PRIOR LAW
Zoning of Annexed Territory.
"'Although former section, while treating
only of taxation, implied.. abstractly that,
upon annexation, a new addition to the mu-
nicipality would be automatically worthy 'of
all benefits ana subject to all liabilities of city
government "subject only to the rule that ex-
isting property rights cannot willy-nilly be
abrogated," such implication did not place
annexed property automatically in the most
restrictive classification under a zoning ordi- ;
nance placing in such classification "all those
parts of the city not specifically included in
other zones." Gaige v. City of Boise, 91 Idaho
481, 425 P.2d 52 (1967). -
50-225. Exclusion of territory. — The boundaries of any city in this
state may be ,altered and a portion of the territory thereof excluded there-
from, and the councils of such cities are hereby granted power to enact
ordinances for that purpose. Such alteration shall not relieve any territory
excluded from the limits of a city from itsliability on account of any out-
standing bonded..or other indebtedness of such cityor of any bonded or
other -indebtedness of any improvement district of which the excluded terri,
tory is an existing part at the time of the passage of such ordinance. For the
purpose of collecting_ any, of the indebtedness specified in this section, the
territory so excluded shall be and remain under the jurisdiction of such
city. Immediately after the passage, approval and publication of said ordi-
...nance, a copy thereof duly, certified by the clerk of said city shall be filed in
compliance with the provisions of section 63-2215, Idaho Code. Thereafter;
the boundaries of said city shall be asset forth in said ordinance. [1967, ch.
429, § 18, p. 1249.]
Compiler's notes. Section 19 of S.L. 1967,
ch. 429 is compiled as § 50-234.
DECISIONS UND
Taxpaye.r's Objection..
The insignificant increase. in. a citizen and
taxpayer's tax burden, due to the loss of taxes
and license fees by reason of the ordinance
disannexing_certain property from the city,
was not sufficient_ to establish their right to
maintainan action to invalidate a city ordi-
ER PRIOR LAW
nance disannexing certain property. Their
remedy by way of referendum, as provided by
the charter and ordinance in, question, was
adequate and complete.. Greer v. Lewiston
Golf&Country Club, 81 Idaho 393, 342 P.2d
719 (1959).
50-226. Separation of agricultural lands — Petition...— The owner
or adjoining owners of any platted or unplatted tract or tracts of land
containing not less than five (5) acres, included within the corporate limits
of any city in this state and used exclusively for agricultural purposes,
provided; however, if there is upon or over such tract or tracts of land a
railroad or canal right of way, such tract .or tracts .shall, if no other -reason
Williamson de -annexation
Subject: Williamson de -annexation
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:00:09 -0600
From: Public Works Department <worksdirector@mccall.id.us>
To: 'Andy Locke' <planner@mccall.id.us>
Andy,
As far as I know the City provides no services to this property.
Bill Keating
1 of 1
7/27/98 8:31 AM