Troy City Council recap

Proposed ordinance would lower some restrictions, raise others

A proposed ordinance that would change the rules for how the City of Troy sells property it owns gained no traction in its original form during the City Council’s April 18 meeting.

The ordinance was tabled until the council’s next work session on Wednesday, May 16.

The proposed ordinance was drafted by City Attorney Clifton Hayden. Hayden said he created the proposed ordinance in response to a question from the city government over whether they could sell land held in trust — such as it has been is the legal status of Second Street — without a general vote from all residents of the city.

Though there was some confusion during the meeting regarding what entitled a person to vote in a city election, Hayden clarified that it was not tied to property ownership, only where a person legally resides.

Hayden said that under state law, the council would have to put it to a general vote from residents before selling such a piece of property. However, since the city is chartered as self-governing, it has the option to adopt an ordinance that would supersede that Montana Code Annotated provision.

So, Hayden created an ordinance that he said would both require more process before the city could sell any property, while making it unnecessary to have a general vote from residents any time the city wanted to sell land dedicated to the public or held in trust.

Action or not

After over an hour of public comment and discussion, the council discussed what to do among themselves.

Only Council Member Joe Arts expressed support for moving forward with the ordinance that night.

Arts said he believed the intent had been to have a first reading that night, which would move the process forward if the the council decided to proceed with the ordinance as it was written.

Arts said the council could put off the second reading and change the ordinance if they decided they did not want to move forward with the current language.

Council Member Chuck Ekstedt pointed out that the council had only received a copy of the proposed ordinance two days prior, and was unable to discuss it at a work meeting first, since the previous week’s work meeting was canceled.

Ekstedt said that, without further discussion, he would not want to make a change.

“I’m for the citizens vote for it. That keeps it out of our hands,” Ekstedt said. “I’m for the citizens voting for it right now.”

Council Member Shawna Kelsey said she liked the idea of restrictions on how other public land is sold. However, she did not like the ordinance as it was written.

“I’d like to see the land that’s held in trust retain the vote,” she said.

Council Member Crystal Denton shared sentiments with Kelsey, both liking the additional “checks and balances” on the sale of regular personal property, but not being in favor of making it easier to sell property held in trust.

“I personally agree with property held in trust having the vote — the people’s vote,” she said.

Hayden agreed to draft alternative language for the council to consider during its May 16 work session.

Public input

Various suggestions were offered from the public, such as requiring a petition rather than a vote.

Hayden said a petition would not be a legal means of determining public ascent, because not all voters would have input.

“Not everyone’s there,” Hayden said.

Denton indicated there was a similar issue with not all of the public being represented in meetings.

“You know, I tell you, this is — for a small town, I’m stunned. I can’t believe that people are getting in here and giving their opinion,” he said. “That’s great. That’s something you don’t see much of anymore.”

Others, such as Larry Cripe, said the city council could face repercussions. He noted the civil action handed to the council during public comment. That suit by Anthony Brown seeks an “Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction” to prevent the city from “taking any action in the matter of” exchanging, donating or selling of any part of Second Street.

Cripe said that if the council passed the ordinance, they would face another legal action over that.

Celeste White made the suggestion most closely resembling the final leanings indicated by council members at the meeting’s end. She suggested altering the proposed ordinance so the provisions for sale, exchange or donation outlined be specified for non-trust property, and an additional section added requiring a general ballot for the sale of property held in trust.