Annexation
Posted by AFAB (-60) 25 days ago
I would like to thank everyone who attended or tried to attend the meeting last night and I would urge anyone who lives in the county near town to attend the March 28th meeting to keep the city from shoving annexation and higher taxes down our throat. IMO the only thing the city is after is the taxes.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+7336) 25 days ago
Conservatives really hate having things shoved down their throats, but they LOVE to talk about it.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-8
Posted by K. D. (+356) 25 days ago
I feel the mayor, city attorney, and the council members were not prepared for this. Mr. Hollowed really never did answer what is in it for the county residents. I really would encourage anyone in the county that has water and /or sewer hooked up or nearby to attend the next meeting.

[Edited by K. D. (3/1/2017 11:03:12 AM)]
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
supporter
Posted by cubby (+1932) 25 days ago
From what I've heard this morning they better hold the next meeting in a much larger place that will accompany everyone that wants to attend. The way they held it last night is not a way to hold a meeting. It's only fair that if you attend a city meeting that there should be room for everyone to hear what everyone before and after them has to say.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
Posted by simplyme (+55) 24 days ago
Dose anyone know the website where I can find the info from last nights meeting?
Top
Posted by AFAB (-60) 24 days ago
Reply to simplyme (#370975)
simplyme wrote:
Dose anyone know the website where I can find the info from last nights meeting?


While I don't know the website? One thing is for certain. The paper had it all jacked up. I sat through the whole meeting and the paper had maybe half of the facts correct if they were lucky. They quoted some citizens with things that other citizens with the same last name but different spelling said and just like the meeting it was a total disaster.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
Posted by K. D. (+356) 24 days ago
Hopefully you can find what your're looking for here. The city has never been one to update on a regular basis.
http://milescity-mt.org/c...-meetings/

[Edited by K. D. (3/1/2017 11:34:11 PM)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Colette Butcher (+377) 17 days ago
There will be a public hearing on Ordinance 1309, "Adopting a utility rule requiring a property owner to consent to annexation as a condition of receiving water and/or sewer services." This Ordinance affects property owners that are members of the Custer County Water and Sewer District. The hearing will be during the council meeting on March 28th at 7:00 pm. PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE CUSTER COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, not City Hall as usual.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+4
Posted by AFAB (-60) 17 days ago
Thanks for the update. I would really like to know who's brilliant idea this was to start with. The officials we as county residents were not allowed to vote for somehow think they control the destiny of our property.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
Posted by Meg (+28) 17 days ago
76-2-303. Procedure to administer certain annexations and zoning laws -- hearing and notice. (1) The city or town council or other legislative body of a municipality shall provide for the manner in which regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of districts are determined, established, enforced, and changed, subject to the requirements of subsection (2).
(2) A regulation, restriction, or boundary may not become effective until after a public hearing in relation to the regulation, restriction, or boundary at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard has been held. At least 15 days' notice of the time and place of the hearing must be published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the municipality.
(3) (a) For municipal annexations, a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation if the proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property:
(i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;
(ii) authorize land uses that are consistent with land uses approved by the board of county commissioners or the board of adjustment pursuant to Title 76, chapter 2, part 1 or 2; or
(iii) are consistent with zoning requirements recommended in a growth policy adopted pursuant to Title 76, chapter 1, for the annexed property.
(b) A joint hearing authorized under this subsection (3) fulfills a municipality's obligation regarding zoning notice and public hearing for a proposed annexation.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+7336) 17 days ago
Laws, how do they work?
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-5
supporter
Posted by Colette Butcher (+377) 17 days ago
The upcoming hearing is in regard to the proposed utility rule, not an annexation at this time. However,the City does have an annexation plan and any future annexations are initiated the City Council, I've been told. Hopefully we can all get our questions answered at this upcoming meeting.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
Posted by AFAB (-60) 16 days ago
First of all Bridgier can go fly a kite. Second IMO the city brass not being fiscally responsible enough to balance their budget should not be used to punish other citizens that paid a premium for their property because it is not in the city and not in the flood plain. Giving them more tax revenue is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. It will only be a matter of time before they are out of money again and then what will they do? It seems they would struggle to operate a profitable lemonade stand.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+6
-5
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+7336) 16 days ago
I can't help it if you bought a house within an area subject to lawful annexation.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+7
-3
Posted by AFAB (-60) 15 days ago
As usual. You have no meaningful content to add. That's about par.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+5
-6
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1244) 15 days ago
AFAB, you can always disconnect your city services, dig a well and put in a septic system and not be part of the city. It seems that they are only attempting to annex the properties that use city services.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+4
-1
Posted by AFAB (-60) 15 days ago
Cory,
If it is that easy then I surely will. I already have a well so it would be nothing to put in a septic system.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
Posted by Donald Jones (+26) 15 days ago
My only more of a question is if they have service through Custer county water and sewer district is that miles city water and sewer, or a complete separate entity? Yes I understand the county sewer and water contracts with the city but do the users?
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+4
Posted by AFAB (-60) 10 days ago
I was told last night that the Custer County water and sewer district will be holding an informational meeting regarding the city's plan for annexation on Monday the 20th at 630pm in rooms 106 and 107 at MCC. I encourage everyone who lives near the city in the county to attend.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+4
supporter
Posted by Colette Butcher (+377) 10 days ago
It is very important for all property owners currently receiving water and/or sewer services from the Custer County Water and Sewer District to be in attendance at this informational meeting as well as those living in the outlying areas of the City limits as mentioned in the previous post by AFAB. Please help spread the word to those who may not see it on here. Thanks!!
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
Posted by Phil Shifley (+100) 10 days ago
Reply to Cory Cutting (#371166)
Cory Cutting wrote:
AFAB, you can always disconnect your city services, dig a well and put in a septic system and not be part of the city. It seems that they are only attempting to annex the properties that use city services.


Cory and AFAB, no you cannot. If an existing service is within something like 500 feet as per DEQ regulation it is illegal to disconnect and install your own. You have to go with the cleaner, more developed service. Even though this is mentioned as an option noone is disclosing the fact that it's illegal.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+7336) 10 days ago
My god, is there no end to the liberal fascism?
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-6
Posted by AFAB (-60) 9 days ago
Reply to Bridgier (#371227)
Bridgier wrote:
My god, is there no end to the liberal fascism?


Bridgier
If you don't have anything worthwhile to say please quit trolling this thread. It is very important for a lot of residents and we don't need your useless input deterring readers of this thread.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+9
supporter
Posted by Colette Butcher (+377) 6 days ago
Just a reminder that the Custer Water and Sewer District Board will hold an informational meeting about annexation tomorrow night, March 20th, at 6:30 at MCC room 106.

It is very important that all property owners receiving water and/or sewer from Custer Water and Sewer and those property owners on the outlying edges of the City limits attend this meeting.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+3
Posted by AFAB (-60) 5 days ago
The meeting last night was well attended and very informative. Great job by the CCWSD. While the attendance was good I still think we can pack more people into the meeting next Tuesday. I urge everyone to attend.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+3
newbie
Posted by B_Stieg (-8) 3 days ago
Reply to Cory Cutting (#371166)
Cory how about you let the locals worry about their issues!?!?
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-3
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1244) 2 days ago
Gee, if someone who doesn't live in the beautiful MC can't make a fairly obvious, non-threatening comment on a post, Larry should just shut down the whole show. Many, many people who comment here DON'T live there.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+4
newbie
Posted by B_Stieg (-8) 2 days ago
Reply to Cory Cutting (#371335)
I no longer live in Miles City either. That being said I have never been inclined to tell someone whom actually owns property involved in this to basically dig up or shut up. Commenting in general is one thing but singling out an individual is a a whole other can of worms.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+7336) 2 days ago
oh ffs.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-1
Posted by AFAB (-60) 2 days ago
B_Steig
They are the first to whine when you troll on their threads but they don't mind trolling on yours. Lol
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
-4
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+9605) 2 days ago
Reply to AFAB (#371347)
Hey Anything-For-A-Buck Howhard,

Cory was trying to be helpful to you with his suggestion to use a septic tank. You seemed grateful for the suggestion at the time. I have no idea why you felt the need to turn on him just because "B_Stieg" decided to, but it makes you look petty.

And "B_Stieg", Cory has as much right to post on these forums as you or anyone else does. If you don't like what he says, you're welcome to say so, but trying to bully him off the forums is not acceptable.

- Dave
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
-1
Posted by AFAB (-60) 2 days ago
Again they love to troll. It gives them a sense of being when they run people off the site with all of their jibrish.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+2
-3
newbie
Posted by B_Stieg (-8) 22 hours ago
Reply to David Schott (#371348)
I was not bullying anyone off of this forum. Not sure why challenging Cory would be considered bullying? Just seems odd to me why feels so opinionated about this issue. I have family that this directly affects. Cory assumes the degree of city services people in the proposed annexation supposedly receive. He is welcome to comment all he wants, but when he is making comments based on assumptions he should be able to handle someone challenging his opinion....is that not the purpose of having open forums?
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-1
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+9605) 21 hours ago
Reply to B_Stieg (#371329)
B_Stieg wrote:
Cory how about you let the locals worry about their issues!?!?

This sounded kind of "if you don't live here, you don't belong here" to me, and judging by Cory's response he didn't exactly take it as a friendly comment either.

Besides that, I see nothing that Cory said up to that point that deserved that kind of a remark.

The basis for Cory's comment was very likely this information in the Miles City Star (underline emphasis added by me):

Miles City Star: A Full House
Published: Wed, 03/01/2017 - 3:12pm
By Elaine Forman

[ . . . ]

The Ordinance


Mayor John Hollowell said there has been no decision made on what areas, if any, to annex and the ordinance adopts a utility rule requiring property owner’s consent to annexation as a condition of receiving water and/or sewer service.

The ordinance has to go through two readings by the council and a public hearing. It will also go through the Finance Committee for a recommendation.

Council’s Public Service Committee reviewed the ordinance at a meeting on Monday that also attracted a large crowd voicing many of the same concerns. No motion was made to recommend the ordinance.

Tuesday night City Attorney Dan Rice said this ordinance would not affect people with their own septic system and water unless they were totally surrounded by people with city water and sewer.


City Hall began getting many phone calls from people against annexation about Thursday, according to City Clerk Lorrie Pearce, and the calls became more steady each day.

If annexation is attempted the ordinance calls for a 10-day period for Custer County Water and Sewer District customers outside the city limits to make arrangements to discontinue water and sewer service after receiving a mailed notice if they don’t want to be annexed in.

Rice explained to the crowd that the ordinance used a Whitefish law as a draft because it has already been upheld by the Montana Supreme Court.

He said that since the inception of the district up to 1999 the agreement between the city and the district was the city required a signed no-protest to annexation agreement for each individual user that used the services. If the previous property owner signed it, it remained in effect for the property and shows up on the title insurance.

In 1999 the policy was changed to only require commercial property owners to sign the agreement, but the previous agreements remained in place.

Rural resident Nolan Mikelson said he signed the agreement “under protest,” and opined that what the city is doing is unconstitutional.

Rice said that has been brought up before and in the 1980s there was a lawsuit but there was never a final judgement on it, because it was settled out of court.


[ . . . ]

Read more here.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-1
newbie
Posted by B_Stieg (-8) 11 hours ago
Reply to David Schott (#371363)
Had this issue say affected his mothers property and her taxes could potentially double he would be singing a different tune. Especially had someone made those same snarky comments he did. Like I said before if he can't handle a few questions about his comments then don't post them I guess...anyways I am done explaining to someone besides Cory my feelings about this topic. If he is worried about it he will reply.
permalink   ·  vote tally
Top
+1
-3