At last night's City Commission work session and City Commission meeting, the proposed land swap, here and here, between the county and city, was discussed.
The current wording of the city's motion read: “I move that the City Commission approve/deny the Land Exchange Agreement with Cascade County and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and deeds of transfer.”
At the work session, Commissioner Bronson was right when he said the cart was being brought before the horse. In essence, the end result was being agreed to without the process being adhered to, which includes public input. To date, the county has not met with the Neighborhood Councils involved, which are 2 and 7.
The current wording of the city's motion read: “I move that the City Commission approve/deny the Land Exchange Agreement with Cascade County and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and deeds of transfer.”
At the work session, Commissioner Bronson was right when he said the cart was being brought before the horse. In essence, the end result was being agreed to without the process being adhered to, which includes public input. To date, the county has not met with the Neighborhood Councils involved, which are 2 and 7.
For this reason, he amended the wording of the motion. After reading the amendment, the commissioners voted 5-0 to approve the MOU (memorandum of understanding) which will authorize the process to begin, but makes clear the end result, which is the exchange, may not be agreed to.
For more details, see today's article in the Tribune.
For more details, see today's article in the Tribune.
2 comments:
I thought it would be appropriate to shed some additional light on the discussion of the street abandonment proposed as a part of the land swap agreement between the city and county. Aaron is correct that the details are sketchy as this proposal was just floated in recent days as a way for the city to acquire the land they need without having to compensate the county for the differences in the value of the land. For obvious reasons the City of Great Falls does not want to have to pay the county the $250,000 required to make the taxpayers of Cascade County whole in the swap.
The original proposal from the city did not address the $250,000 difference in land values and simply proposed the swap of the high value County property for a piece of much less valuable city land within the Expo Park complex. In discussions with the city it was clear they sought a way to complete the swap without a cash exchange. Accordingly, we crafted a proposal calling for the transfer of the street in addition to City land with the Expo Park complex. That proposal acknowledged that they might not be able to complete the street transfer and provided them the option of paying the County the roughly $250,000 land value difference instead of transferring the street.
City staff rejected that proposal and made the counter proposal to the county which was on the agenda for both Commissions yesterday. What occurred was; the County Commission accepted the proposal put forward by the City staff and the City Commission rejected the proposal crafted by the city staff.
The County stands by its previous proposal in which it is the city’s option whether to transfer the street or pay the county the cash difference. The County’s original proposal would allow the issue to be settled quickly and the road construction to begin. It would provide an exchange balanced in value by either cash or the street transfer. It would allow the city to run the required public processes, allow the citizens of the downtown area input into the action and then the city could decide whether to transfer the street or pay the cash difference.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.
Joe Briggs
Cascade County Commissioner
Bronson finally did something thougful for a change - Wow! Lets see if he can continue using the grey matter in other serious issues, does ECP ring a bell?
Post a Comment