"Debate heats up over South Dakota airport legislation"

Sunday, February 9, 2003

Debate heats up over airport legislation
By Diane Rietman
The Rapid City (SD) Journal


RAPID CITY - State legislators on Saturday advised Rapid City and Pennington
County officials to work out their annexation problems at the local level.
But the message came only three days before the Legislature's House
Municipal Government Committee is scheduled to debate three bills dealing
with Rapid City Regional Airport.

The legislation was discussed briefly during Saturday's crackerbarrel
session with legislators in Rapid City, but it was a hot topic before and
after the meeting.

Pennington County Commission Chairman Ken Davis and Rapid City Mayor Jerry
Munson said the leadership of the two boards has agreed to a compromise on
bills that will address platting jurisdiction for up to 1.25 miles from the
city airport property.

Having platting jurisdiction normally allows the city to review and approve
a land subdivision within three miles of the city or, in this case, the
airport. This ensures a coordination of utilities, infrastructure and land
uses.

But until a recent meeting resolved the issue, city and county officials had
been at odds over how far platting jurisdiction should extend from city
limits.

Control over jurisdiction has been at the heart of the Rapid City Council's
controversial decision to annex - involuntarily, which means without
residents' permission - more than 9,342 acres between Elk Vale Road and the
airport. The city wants to have control over land development in the
airport's flight line.

But under current law, annexed land must be contiguous to the city limits,
which is why the city would have to take in such a large chunk of land -
most of it undeveloped - between the city limits and the airport.

Legislation to be considered in Pierre on Tuesday would allow the city to
have that control, but without having to annex all the land involved.

"It would be a relief if we did not have to move forward with the
annexation," Munson said Saturday afternoon. "We'd want to revisit
annexation, but only include enough land contiguous to Rapid City along the
ridge for water towers and future needs east of Doyle Estes' (Big Sky
development) property. It would be a much more measured annexation."

One party that hasn't been to the table to negotiate a compromise is Box
Elder.

Currently, Box Elder's three-mile platting jurisdiction extends about 200 to
300 feet into the Regional Airport runway.

"All parties are not on board. We need to hear from everybody, not just
Rapid City and Pennington County," state Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City,
said.

"This is not going to be easy to sell to Box Elder, and the Legislature has
made it clear that this needs to be worked out at the local level. It's not
a legislative issue."

Box Elder is opposed to the proposed legislation, Box Elder City Attorney
Rex Hagg said.

The bills are:

   HB1202 would allow annexation of airports located outside the corporate
limits of the annexing city and also would regulate platting jurisdiction.

   HB1189 would allow sales tax to be collected at a municipal airport
outside the city corporate limits.

   HB1190 would allow annexation of land in the vicinity of airports.

The airport issue will be further complicated Tuesday night when the Box
Elder City Council considers a petition from nearby residents to be
voluntarily annexed into Box Elder. The property involved includes land in
the involuntary annexation area proposed by Rapid City, as well as land
adjacent to the city of Box Elder but not part of the Rapid City annexation
project. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Box Elder City Hall.

That could, in turn, lead to a heated debate Wednesday night when the Rapid
City Council continues its public hearing on the forced annexation proposal.
That meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the council chambers of the City/School
Administration Center.

The Pennington County Commission delayed a decision on whether it would
approve annexation of the unplatted land until March 11, hoping that the
state Legislature could resolve the issue with a change in state law.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************