Libby council delays decision after county asks for Riverfront Park parcel for animal shelter

The Libby City Council agreed to continue discussion of a county request to receive a parcel around the city’s animal shelter at Riverfront Park, after councilors raised concerns about the city’s future space needs and possible alternatives such as a land swap or long-term lease.

Council discussion began when members reviewed a county proposal to have the city donate the footprint around an animal-shelter building. Councilor Taylor said he had intended to send the request to the building committee but hoped for concentrated discussion because of the property’s large size and competing uses. Councilor Taylor noted the city might need the parcel to expand wastewater infrastructure or relocate the street shop in the future.

City Administrator said the parcel could be important for future wastewater projects and described constraints on developable land in the riverfront area, including a power line and an old dump that limit buildable acreage. Mr. Chisum explained the governing process for transfers: a disposal normally requires published notice and a two-thirds council approval, although transfers between governmental entities may follow an alternative statutory mechanism with a resolution if the property no longer serves a sufficient city interest.

Councilors and speakers pressed alternatives. Councilor Burger said the current shelter building 'looks like they need to completely tear it down' and favored a lease arrangement to help the county qualify for grants rather than an outright donation. Several councilors suggested asking the county to consider an equivalent land swap. Members agreed they would draft a letter back to the county and continue the matter at the next council meeting rather than approving an immediate transfer.

During public comment, John BB urged the council to adopt a formal city policy for transferring or leasing public land, saying, 'we should have an IAL policy to deal with all of these things' to avoid ad hoc decisions. Another commenter, Carner, recommended pursuing a swap instead of 'just giving this away.'

Next steps: the council directed staff to prepare a response letter to the county outlining questions and the possibility of a swap or lease, and to continue the discussion at the Feb. 18 meeting. No formal property transfer or vote occurred at the Jan. 21 meeting.