Libby City Council tables vote on growth policy

Concern from some residents led the Libby City Council to put off approving its new growth policy.

At the Jan. 3 meeting city councilors had planned to give the plan their OK, but after a number of comments from area residents, the council decided to revise the document to add language about annexation and tabled their decision until the next city council meeting, set for Jan. 16.

Joel Nelson of Land Solutions began addressing the growth policy in the meeting by responding to previous comments.

There were concerns about the downtown policy, specifically the emphasis on additional downtown planning, Nelson said. The growth policy acknowledges the importance of a 2005 downtown plan that was not adopted by the city, Nelson said. There was discussion about restructuring the draft policy earlier on that would take emphasis away from the downtown, Nelson said.

“The city council and planning board have both worked through the comments that have been raised,” Nelson said, noting that if there were a restructuring it would be a “significant endeavor” that may push the project over-budget.

After hearing concerns at multiple meetings from multiple individuals, making a statement regarding what a planning policy is not could be important, Nelson said, adding that he had made the suggestion at the last meeting

After opening for public comment, a member of the public, Felicia Lucas said that she would argue for having an annexation comment put in like Nelson suggested.

“I think from the community conversation I’ve had (annexation has) been the largest portion of confusion and ire,” Lucas said. “I would argue for having an annexation explanation of a basic model put in there,”

Another member of the public, Jennifer Nelson said the 11 pages of the growth policy that are dedicated to the downtown versus the page-and-a-half that focus on housing issues was disproportionate to what the city’s residents want out of a growth plan.

Nelson said the 2005 downtown plan was not adopted by the council, and so it should not be a model for the downtown because it was not agreed to by the citizens’ representatives.

Catherine Hogan, a member of the public who lives in an anticipated growth area said that upfront communication is going to be important to her.

“As someone noted, (annexation is) a really charged topic. It really made me nervous about having the possibility of my home being part of the city. I really do not want that,” Hogan said.

The city council then voted to add a statement about annexation to the growth policy unanimously after having heard public comment.

At the Jan. 3 meeting citizens expressed concern with the plan, arguing that it could be used to annex unincorporated areas, Nelson said. To address that concern, on page 3 Nelson suggested adding to the introduction “a city growth plan is not an annexation plan or a city's plan to annex unincorporated areas.”

Nelson suggested the vote to approve the growth plan be tabled until the sentence is added to the growth policy and can be reviewed.

Nelson added that some dates may need to be changed in the document to update it, and incorporate a different date of adoption, Nelson said.

“Thank you all. I know this has been a long process,” Mayor Peggy Williams said.