Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission begins review of annexation policy and water-share rules, tables discussion until next meeting
Summary
Commissioners discussed the city's annexation policy and how water-share requirements and outside-water connections affect potential annexations. They asked for a focused policy review and tabled the topic to the next meeting or a work session.
The Ferron Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 5 began a detailed discussion of the city's annexation policy, focusing on water-share requirements, outside-water connection rules and how those rules affect whether property owners choose to annex into Ferron.
Commissioners and staff reviewed the annexation ordinance language (several versions dated 2011–2012 were cited) and discussed the current requirement that landowners turning over parcels for annexation must provide water shares (commonly four shares per acre for 0–1 acre parcels, per existing policy). Commissioners raised that requirement as a potential barrier to annexation for small-lot owners and asked staff to recommend changes.
A lengthy exchange covered city water accounting and secondary (irrigation) versus culinary water. Staff said the city holds approximately 1,663 shares (reported in meeting discussion) allocated across culinary and secondary uses; commissioners debated how many shares are used by city facilities such as the golf course and cemetery and noted that the state auditor will require metering of city facilities' water use. Commissioners expressed concern that current share allocation and indexing rules are confusing to property owners.
Commissioner Clausen moved—and Commissioner Harvey seconded—to table the annexation policy review until a work session or the next regular meeting to allow commissioners more time to review the documents and prepare suggested edits. The motion carried.
Commissioners directed staff to circulate the annexation materials and a collaborative document for commissioners to annotate, and suggested Todd (staff counsel or planner) assist with redrafting language for clarity. Commissioners discussed whether the share requirement should scale with likely future lot splits (for example, fewer shares for single-home annexations and more shares if parcel is likely to be subdivided into multiple homes).
Staff also said the city has an index fee option for outside connections in some cases; commissioners asked for clearer rules about when fees can substitute for turning over shares. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a short list of recommended changes and background material on how many shares are allocated to city facilities and how many are currently in use.
