The Whitefish City Council on Monday will resume its discussion about annexing dozens of properties surrounding Whitefish Lake, but opposition already is being raised in at least one neighborhood.

A work session from 5 to 7 p.m. at Whitefish City Hall will allow the council to provide direction on how to proceed. Last August the council directed city staff to move forward with the annexations, with 16 parcels in the East Lakeshore area and 50 properties along Houston Drive ranked as the top two priority areas.

Other areas targeted for future annexation include the West Lakeshore Drive and Ramsey Avenue areas.

The water quality of Whitefish Lake was cited as a key reason for the annexations. It’s also a way to make residents who live adjacent to city limits pay for the city services they regularly use.

“It really comes down to taxation equity, paying for services one receives and ending subsidies, which are very difficult topics for people to accept,” Whitefish City Manager Chuck Stearns said in his council report.

State law allows cities to annex wholly surrounded properties despite any and all protests, he noted.

The city had planned to complete the East Lakeshore and Houston Drive annexations last year, but the process was delayed by the departure of city Finance Director Rich Knapp, a heavy workload for Stearns and City Attorney Mary VanBuskirk and the fall election that brought three new council members on board.

Also, Stearns said, when some property owners started complaining to the council about the annexation, the city decided to put it off until this year.

East Lakeshore properties were bumped to the top of the priority list because city officials believed the city had a majority of property owners who had petitioned to annex. But when the research was done on those properties, the city discovered it didn’t have the petitions.

“Thus we would have to do a longer, more involved process to annex the properties using the Annexation with Provision of Services method of annexation,” Stearns said.

The council chose the Houston Drive area as the second priority because some but not all properties have sewer mains available to them.

Whitefish Attorney Sean Frampton sent a letter to the city Feb. 18 raising objections to the Houston Drive annexations. He represents both the Houston Lake Shore Property Owners Against Annexation and the Stocking Addition Property Owners Against Annexation.

Frampton maintains the portion of state law the city of Whitefish is using to annex wholly surrounded properties isn’t applicable, and that it specifically prohibits the city from attempting to annex two or more tracts at the same time.

“The city must follow the statutory scheme ... which does not authorize annexing two or more tracts under one resolution,” Frampton said. “The city has been well aware of this limitation since attorney Leo Tracy pointed it out in his letter to the city of Oct. 1, 1983.”

The city attempted unsuccessfully to annex the Houston Drive area in 1983 and again in 2000.

Frampton further pointed out that the Houston Drive area isn’t wholly surrounded because Whitefish Lake is on one side. He cited a 2005 city ordinance — created when the city annexed the lake — that states the city “assures the public that Whitefish Lake is not being annexed for the purpose of facilitating future annexations.”

Frampton said his clients also dispute the water quality premise for proceeding with annexation. A septic leachate report listed the area as Tier One for potential water degradation. Water quality testing found no E. coli bacteria in the water off Houston Lake Shore Tracts, yet found high concentrations of the bacteria in other places on the lake.

“It remains clear, then, that based on the results of the city’s own study, protecting water quality is not the basis upon which you seek to annex my clients’ properties,” Frampton said. “Rather the real reason for annexation is as Mr. Stearns was quoted as saying in the Whitefish Pilot on Aug. 14, 2013, ‘those who are wholly surrounded are using city services every day...[and] should pay for them.’”

Stearns said there are some benefits to annexation. 

People who are annexed get to vote in city elections, they get the benefit of the Municipal Court and city attorney services, their garbage and recycling costs typically decrease and if they’re already on city utilities they no longer have to pay a surcharge on their water and sewer bills. City residents have a higher level of police services and also get a $200 discount on any ambulance bills.

In exchange for the added city services, however, annexed residents can expect property tax increases of about 20 percent, and if they’re not on city sewer it will cost anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 to connect to the sewer system.

Stearns suggested the council may want to consider some limited financial incentives to help with annexations around the lake. When he worked for the city of Missoula from 1984 to 1994, that city annexed about 10,000 people in 1989 and offered a $1,000 credit to those connecting to the sewer system.

“Any subsidy such as that is fraught with implications and precedents,” Stearns warned. “People who connected in prior years will often ask that they be given a payment after-the-fact and it is difficult to stop paying a subsidy once it has started.” 

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.