The Planning Division is requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider a Resolution to Exclude Property described as Lot 20, Block 3, Rolle Subdivision, located between Alkali Creek Road and Highway 3 (Airport Road). The deannexation would result in about 6.64 acres of undeveloped land being taken out of the City. Petitioner and property owner Robert Honaker has signed the attached petition to request this property be deannexed. A 20-day public comment period beginning April 25, 2013 was legally noticed on April 25 and May 9. No comments have been received as of May 9. City staff has reviewed this deannexation request and supports the deannexation of this property.

The City Council may:
• Approve the Resolution to Exclude Property to deannex the subject property; or
• Not approve the Resolution to Exclude Property and not deannex the subject property.

This property was intended to be developed in the City for residential uses and has been providing City tax and assessment revenue even as undeveloped land for the past 24 years.  The tax year 2012 taxes and assessments equal $2,026, most of which is City storm and street maintenance revenue that will be lost if the property is deannexed.  The property is within the City's Limits of Annexation designated for annexation into the City within the next 5 years. This means that the City could deannex the property now and be petitioned to annex the property again at any time. However, as described in other parts of this report, City service provision to the property has significant challenges. 

The Planning Division is requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider a Resolution to Exclude Property described as Lot 20, Block 3, Rolle Subdivision. The deannexation would result in about 6.64 acres of undeveloped land being taken out of the City between Alkali Creek Road and Highway 3 (Airport Road). The zoning of Residential 9600 would remain in place on the property as the property has been zoned the same since it was in the County originally and single family development is possible on the property, either in the City or County.

Staff has reviewed this deannexation petition and finds that the requested deannexation meets some of the criteria in the City's Deannexation Policy for deannexation. The requested deannexation is consistent with the City’s Deannexation Policy in that:

1. The property is not connected to City water, wastewater, or storm drainage facilities, and appears to not be able to connect to these facilities without a significant expenditure of personal or public funds, and
2. The property is not encumbered by any indebtedness of any improvement district of which the territory is a part, and
3. The property is not adjacent to any public right-of-way

The requested deannexation is not consistent with the City’s deannexation policy in that:
1. The property is not located on the outer perimeter of the City limits and upon exclusion of the property will contribute to a series of parcels wholly surrounded by City limits.
2. The property is bordered by other property within the City Limits on the north and east, and is adjacent to the acceptable limits of annexation as defined on the most recent update of the Limits of Annexation Map.

From a service standpoint, City staff did not have any significant concerns with deannexation of the property since it has not yet been developed and service delivery and access to the property is challenging. A major challenge for providing some services to the property is that it is accessed from Airport Rd. via an easement across property in the County, so there is no public right-of-way adjacent to the property itself.

Comments from the City Police, Fire, Public Works, MET Transit, Finance, Legal, and Planning departments expressed no significant impacts to their services if the property were deannexed. A summary of the specific comments from some of the Departments regarding services is provided below:

Public Works:
Water – Water service is available from Alkali Creek Road, but it would be difficult for the property owner to provide the extension from the City water main to this property. It would require a very long extension at the responsibility of the developer from one direction and there are severe topographical issues if the water was extended from the Alkali Creek direction (There are no water mains in Airport Road in this area). There is a rock ridge outcropping that extends for much of the north and west frontage of the property facing Alkali Creek Road that creates physical challenges for utility infrastructure.   

Sanitary Sewer –  Sanitary service is available, but like water it would be difficult for the property owner to provide the extension from the City sanitary sewer main to this property. It would require a very long extension at the responsibility of the developer from one direction and there are severe topographical issues if the sewer was extended from the Alkali Creek direction (There are no sewer mains in Airport Road in this area).

Solid Waste division – The Public Works Department is able to serve this property, but would have to access it off of Airport Road via the access easement and given the traffic and speeds on Airport Road, an access that was safe would have to be developed.

MET Transit:The closets MET bus route is along Alkali Creek Road, but this property accesses Airport Road for ingress and egress. There is no way to serve this property safely or easily given that there is no bus service on Airport Road at this time.

Planning: Since the property appears difficult to develop, access, and serve, it is not critical to City/urban expansion. While it would add to several properties that are within the 5-year Limits of Annexation Area in this area, it is likely that given the service challenges several of these properties will not be annexed into the City. 

Fire: The Fire Department pointed out that this property will fall under the Billings Urban Fire Service Area (BUFSA) if it is deannexed and still be served by the Billings Fire Department under that service agreement.

Parks: Park staff pointed out that it owns the property directy east of the subject property and the Sale of Parkland Committee has identified the parkland adjacent to the property requesting de-annexation as well as the property  to the east of it across the BBWA Canal as land to sell.  The property is not currently being analyzed by the Committee for sale but is on its list of possible properties. It is also important to note that the park land property adjacent to the property requesting deannexation is below rock outcroppings that separate the two properties and so the issues of service delivery and access even with City property currently adjacent are still significant.

The property owner petitioning to deannex is the primary stakeholder in this process. The City has followed the procedures for deannexation as per 7-2-48 of the MCA, including advertising and allowing for a 20-day comment period on the deannexation request prior to conducting a public hearing on the request. The Planning Division has not received any public comment about this deannexation, aside from the information submitted by the property owner. 

This deannexation petition is in alignment with some of the deannexation critera as set out in the City's Deannexation Policy and this is discussed in more detail in the Background Section of this report.