Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Star Valley Ranch council and special counsel review Mountain Estates annexation draft, set public hearing
Summary
Special counsel reviewed the Mountain Estates annexation agreement and statutory findings; council members pressed for tightened language on infrastructure, assignment, and well-development options. An April 30 hearing will cover statutory determinations with subsequent ordinance hearings required.
Special counsel Thayne Peterson joined the April 14 Star Valley Ranch work session by Zoom to walk the council through the draft Mountain Estates annexation agreement and the statutory findings the town must make before annexing the property.
Councilman Taylor Ellis pressed for several changes to limit future flexibility in the contract, including removing the phrase "unless otherwise agreed" from infrastructure construction provisions and tightening assignment language so obligations transfer with the property only with written town consent. Ellis asked for an added option on well development that would allow a landowner to decline drilling an additional well in exchange for higher impact fees; Peterson agreed that option should be included. Peterson also advised the council that state statute permits annexing property that is substantially surrounded (he noted a 70% surround threshold), which addresses a council concern about lots that would be bordered on three sides by the annexation and a county road on the fourth.
Town Engineer Ryan Welling told the council the system was designed to serve town buildout and that annexation-related impact fees should fund any additional capacity. He said an adequate on-site well (about 200 GPM in the discussion) could eliminate a source impact fee while leaving storage fees in place; without an adequate well, full impact fees would apply. Welling estimated the system threshold requiring new sources or storage would be reached at roughly 2,040 lots. He also cautioned about the complexity of crediting new assets against existing infrastructure costs.
Peterson outlined the next steps: the council must hold a public hearing on April 30 to make the required statutory determinations (health, safety and welfare; urban development as a natural extension; basic services availability; contiguity; no donut hole; procedural compliance; electrical power availability). Following those determinations the town will draft the annexation ordinance and hold separate hearings on the ordinance adoption. Peterson said the council could remove the clause that would make agreement terms prevail over contrary ordinance provisions if the council prefers to handle variances case by case.
Mayor Rok asked council members and the planning commission to submit recommended changes—particularly updated bonding and warranty language and any planning-commission findings—to counsel for incorporation into a revised draft before the public hearing. The planning commission's recommendation that infrastructure be installed and accepted by the town with appropriate warranties before final plat recording was noted as a possible requirement to include in the agreement.
The council did not take a final vote on the annexation at the work session; Peterson and staff said formal findings and ordinance hearings will follow the April 30 statutory hearing.
