City should honor its commitment, reader says

Letter to the Editor,

On Nov. 3, 2011, Dann Rohrer, chairman of the board of Cabinet View Golf Club asked me to attend a meeting of the Libby City Council on Nov. 10 at City Hall concerning a bill that the Council attached to the request by CVGC for an extension of the plat filled for the development on CVGC property.

At the meeting the City of Libby was not able to present any signed document that validated the attached bill of over $600,000.

Mr. Doug Roll, the mayor, conducted the meeting and alluded to collective memories of past agreements. He recalled a meeting between Mr. Wayne Haines, himself, and me. I asked Mr. Haines if he had any recollection of this meeting. He did not.

In order to clarify the agreement between the City of Libby and CVGC as to the cost of the sewer, I have tried to reconstruct the events. I have used minutes from board meetings and events that I was a party to in the process.

The idea of annexation came to the attention of the board in 2002 in conjunction with a program titled, “Dream It Do It.” This was a movement to improve Libby. The annexation of the development at CVGC was part of a plan to expand the City of Libby to cover the Cabinet View housing area and other parcels in the area.

The city had tried earlier to annex the area and failed. Mayor Tony Berget and a person from the State of Montana met with the board to present environmental concerns that made annexation necessary.

Many of the septic systems in Cabinet View had failed, a major slide had occurred along Flower Creek, and there was evidence of material from the septic systems along the cliff leading to the creek. The situation prompted the Tripp family to move their home. The advantage to CVGC would be a sewer system that would allow smaller lot sizes on the development.

CVGC could play a major part in the annexation because of the size of the land it owned.

Mayor Berget requested that CVGC host a meeting with the residents of the area to discuss the project and answer questions. The meeting was held at the CVGC clubhouse on April 30, 2003.

This meeting was the critical point for the involvement of CVGC in the annexation process. Mayor Berget fielded questions from over 48 people in attendance. Mr. Berget was asked by one of the residents of Cabinet View what the tax increase would be for a home. Mayor Berget produced a pamphlet that had been created earlier for the annexation.

He used the Johnson Acres Project as the model for how this would work. He stated that a home valued at $90,000 would see a city tax increase of $11 a month. Some of this would be mitigated by reduction in rural fire fees. He stated that a new study would be done if the board of CVGC committed to the annexation. Taxes for the course at this time were about $6,000 a year.

When asked what the increase would be he responded, “Minimal.” He suggested that the increase would be about $1,000 a year. He said these were not firm figures but close. After more discussion, Wayne Haines suggested a show of hands as to the interest in the project. The count was 45 for and 2 against. At this time, I made a motion that CVGC proceed. It passed.

At this meeting or any other time during my term on the board was there ever any mention of any extra charges against CVGC. It came as a great surprise that after we were annexed, we would be taxed a sprinkling and lighting fee of over $4,000 a year.

CVGC lived up to all requests from the City of Libby. Members canvassed the area twice to complete the annexation process. I met with Scott Spencer, the City Attorney, numerous times to get legal descriptions and addresses to complete the canvasses. Finally, the process was completed and the annexation was completed at a meeting of the Libby City Council.

The issue that now faces us is an issue of credibility. As I have stated, at no time during this process was the board of CVGC ever informed by the City of Libby concerning a fee for the sewer project.

The mayor, acting as an agent of the City of Libby, led us to believe that he represented the city and his word was that of the City of Libby. I believe, it is now time for the City of Libby to honor its commitment.

—James Mee

Libby