Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Annexation petition from Mountain Estates clears verification amid council conflict over legal representation
Summary
The Mountain Estates annexation petition was verified as compliant; debate centered on fiscal concerns and whether the town attorney can represent the town given his firm's prior work for the developer. Staff will prepare an annexation report for council review and a public hearing will be scheduled per statute.
The council verified on Dec. 9 that an annexation petition from the Mountain Estates subdivision met the procedural requirements for acceptance, triggering a statutory window for hearings and a council decision.
Mayor Rok advised that the petition was resubmitted Dec. 1 and verified by the town clerk Dec. 2. She explained the statutory timeline obligates the town to hold a public hearing and decision no fewer than 30 days and no more than 180 days after verification, placing the procedural deadline on May 31.
Councilman Merrill challenged the annexation on fiscal and legal grounds and objected strongly to the town attorney, Kevin Voyles, representing the town because Voyles’ firm previously represented the developer. Merrill said: "even though the same firm has been used for both… that's a law, actually. It doesn't matter if it's a divorce case, it doesn’t matter if it's a custody case, it doesn’t matter if it's annexation." Mayor Rok replied that she had asked Voyles about conflicts and that "He said he had no conflict of interest in doing so."
Councilman Ellis and Councilman Toolson asked procedural questions about who would prepare the annexation information. Mayor Rok said staff — led by Administrator Aitken and Town Engineer Ryan Welling — would prepare an annexation report by the end of January and that no decisions would be made until the council had full information on costs and pros and cons.
The exchange revealed divisions among council members over whether the petition meets fiscal and statutory standards; the council did not vote on annexation but committed to following the statutory process, preparing staff analysis, and scheduling the required public hearing and decision within the statutory window.
