County weighing subdivision regulations
By LARRY KLINE - Independent Record - 12/21/08
At issue: How much money should developers pay toward improving roads leading to their new subdivisions?
County officials and Planning Board members have proposed using standards based on the physical conditions of roads, in conjunction with a formula that shows how much traffic a subdivision would add to area roads, to determine how much those developers will pay toward improvements.
The developers’ funding would go into accounts set up by the county for specific traffic corridors, and when enough money has accrued to improve those roads, the work would commence.
Commissioners will hold the first of two public hearings on the proposed regulations Tuesday at 9 a.m. in the City-County Building’s third-floor chambers. The second hearing is expected to be set for sometime in mid-January, giving the public more time to comment and allowing Commissioner-elect Derek Brown a seat at a meeting on the issue.
The proposals are available by following the link in this story online at helenair.com and in Room 404 in the City-County Building. County Administrator Ron Alles admitted the rules are still a work in progress.
“It’s taken time, and I would never suggest that these … are perfect, but I think they’re better, they’re more perfect,” he said in an interview Friday. “Ultimately, the commissioners will need to decide, but I think they’re excited to make some of these changes.”
Spokesmen for local builders and real-estate agents said they have some changes to propose, but by all accounts the discussions over the proposed regulations have been positive exchanges of ideas.
In the past several years, the commission, including outgoing Commissioner Ed Tinsley, has approved more-stringent road standards, and many roads maintained by the county don’t meet those requirements.
Commissioners also believe it’s irresponsible to continue adding traffic to those roads without improvements. They began requiring developers to upgrade roads near their proposed subdivisions, and in some cases those conditions meant applicants would have paid to improve several miles of roadway.
Officials suggested that future developments utilizing the improved roadways could pay rebates to the developers who paid up front, but local interest groups and individuals didn’t like the proposal and said it would be cumbersome.
About 18 months ago, commissioners were served with a lawsuit from developer Jerry Christison, who believes the county’s requirement that he pave about 1.8 miles of Lake Helena Drive — a cost he estimated would be about $3 million — for a 12-home subdivision.
Commissioners, on the advice of their attorneys, stopped adding road improvements to the list of conditions they impose on preliminarily approved subdivisions, and began rejecting proposals off substandard roads, except in a few cases where developers negotiated separate road-improvement agreements with the county.
County Planner Greg McNally took a lead role in developing the rules over the course of the past year. It wasn’t easy.
“It’s difficult when you’re trying to address public health and safety issues,” he said. “A lot of our roads out in the county likely do not meet the standards that we have, but we still want to allow growth to occur. Sometimes finding that balance is difficult.”
Developers would be responsible for gathering engineering estimates for the costs of the road work throughout the traffic corridor, which would include roads adjacent to the subdivision, two roads leading to the subdivision from the nearest state or federal highway, off-site roads where the subdivision is expected to account for at least 10 percent of the average daily traffic, and intersections where the subdivision would account for at least 5 percent of daily traffic.
The formula to determine the costs of upgrading those roads would be based on the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the subdivisions after all homes are built.
Jack Walsh, spokesman for the Helena Building Industry Association, said he wants to see county officials define a maximum amount of mileage developers can expect to pay to improve. He thinks the requirement for upgrades from the subdivision to the nearest state or federal highway is too much.
“I know they’re struggling with it, and they’re trying to come up with something fair, but with the geography of each development … we understand it’s not an easy thing, but we would like to see something definite,” Walsh said.
McNally noted the rule would encourage development near existing infrastructure.
“The county is looking at it in a way they never have in the past,” Walsh added. “We’re happy that they’re being more cooperative. We feel they’re struggling (to find solutions) as much as anyone.”
Mark Simonich, spokesman for the Helena Association of Realtors, declined to comment for this story on specific changes the association is proposing because he was still waiting to hear back from some of the group’s members. But he too is happy with the discussion’s direction.
“We’re not sure we necessarily agree with all of the pieces right now, but we’re very pleased to be working with the county on it,” he said.
Reporter Larry Kline: 447-4075 or larry.kline@helenair.com
Click here to see the proposed new policy.
Current rating: 3.8 with 4 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
attilla wrote on Dec 22, 2008 8:31 AM:
Why are the Realtors and Builders refusing to stand up for these new homebuyers and instead are saying how nice it is to work with the county as they try to extort more money from homeowners? Aren't these people their bread and butter? The Pollyanish comments by Mr. Walsh and Mr. Simonich clearly show an ignorance of what has transpired in L&C County, and also an ingorance of the law spelled out in Montana Code. We, the taxpayers of L&C County, are facing multi-million dollar lawsuits over previous actions from our commissioners related to upgrading roads. The current watered down version will do nothing more than promote more lawsuits, and clearly does not meet the "directly proportional" language in Montana Code Annotated related to offsite road improvements by new development.
We the voters already got rid of one of the rogue county commissioners. Murray and Hunthausen are next, and when that happens there goes Alles' job security. "
capital_city wrote on Dec 21, 2008 10:07 PM:
gln wrote on Dec 21, 2008 10:10 AM:
If you don't stick to your original proposal with the funds up front, the city is going to lose and the other residents will end up picking up the tab- BIG mistake to let these developers have this window. They WILL take their money and run or file for bankruptcy later on. What will it take for the Commissioners to not make this big mistake. There is no compromising here, money first or no approval- even partial funds is no assurance. Sad to read that you are even considering some compromise here- losers! Look at the other developments and learn. "
Text Size:
Small | Medium | Large
View/Post Comments
Email this story
Print this story
Rate Article
Share Article
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
- Saints stunned
- For some, brutal weather means busy day of work
- County weighing subdivision regulations
- Top officer suggests 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan
- Native Stories, Our Stories: Indian education effort breaks new ground
- What’s in a name? For tribal history researcher, everything
- Pickup smashes through facade of downtown business
- Health panel pushes primary care





mike fasbender wrote on Dec 23, 2008 2:05 AM:
First of all what many fail to understand is that developers very rarely pay for anything. Costs are passed through to the new homebuyers. These new home buyers already often pay higher property taxes (due to higher appraised values) than existing homeowners. But, the fact of the matter is they do pay property taxes just like the rest of us. Our all knowing commissioners, hiding behind their catch all phrase of "public health and safety", have increased road standards to the point that there are virtually NO, ZERO, NADA, county roads that meet their ridiculous and often less safe from an engineering standpoint standards. So, what they have created is a situation where there are existing deficiencies in our roads. Who should pay for existing deficiencies? Obviously if there are existing deficiencies, then existing homeowners are not paying their way. Why should new homeowners be forced to pay for our pre-existent failings? Don't they pay taxes just like the existing homeowners? Why should they have to pay extra on top of the property taxes that they already pay?
So, what is the solution? Why is this so difficult? The reason it is so difficult is that L&C County does not want to follow state law. I direct you to Montana Code Annotated 76-3-510, which I believe was referenced without citation by attilla. It states in part, "costs must reasonably reflect the expected impacts directly attributable to the subdivision". Hmm, seems pretty clear to me. All that the local government needs to do is establish existing average daily trips (ADT's) on the directly impacted road, compare it with the estimated ADT's of the proposed subdivision, and the new development will pay their fair percentage. Again, the reason they are making this so difficult is because L&C County wants the new homeowners to pay MORE than their fair share. Further, the legislature gave local governments another method of imposing infrastructure fees on new development, called Impact Fees. So, why has L&C County not pursued impact fees more diligently? Again, because Montana Code requires that local governments establish nexus and proportionality in order to impose impact fees. Once more, not accepted by L&C County because, as I stated earlier and what should be very clear to even the casual observer, L&C County does not want to follow the established laws, and instead want to make up their own laws and force new homeowners to pay MORE than their fair share.
I used to have a lot of respect for the builders and realtors, as they were often out there on the point of the spear and willing to take on local government to protect private property rights and try to promote affordable housing. The comments by their representatives in this article were disappointing to say the least. It would seem they have turned over a new leaf, and are just plum tickled to be able to go in and aid and abet our local government in violating Montana State law. The newly proposed standards still clearly violate MCA, and for the life of me I cannot understand why Mr. Simonich and Mr. Walsh would choose to heap praise on a local government that has continually ignored and is currently thumbing their noses at the legislature and governors who passed and enacted these laws, to the detriment of the private property rights of the citizens of our county. It certainly seems that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Simonich want everyone to sit around and hold hands and sing Kumbaya. What an utterly naive approach to take. I'm reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged:
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, its picked up by scoundrelsand you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."
Thankfully we have finally elected a county commissioner, Derek Brown, who I don't think will compromise on the law and on principles, who has common sense, an engineering background, and who can understand terms like "directly proportional" and "nexus and proportionality". Someone who will avoid lawsuits instead of encouraging them. I'm sure Derek will be met with much opposition, especially in light of the evil middle ground the realtors and builders seem to be taking.
It would certainly seem that "compromise" is the catch word of the builders and realtors. I'll share one more quote from Ayn Rand, "There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of ones silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrenderthe recognition of his right to ones property." "