I submitted a recent guest opinion to the Idaho Mountain Express that focused on the risks and complexities of Hailey's 2-step annexation procedure in the context of the Quigley Canyon annexation matter. I want to make certain that the public understands that my concerns are regarding the annexation procedure (which does not require a concurrent subdivision application and apparently allows deferred annexation fees) and the closed door "workshops."
I support annexation and development of the Quigley Canyon land in the 1994 Hailey ACI with proper conditions and mitigation. I did not mean to imply that the developer of the Quigley project does not have the intent or financial resources to meet any annexation obligations to the City.
Also, I did not mean to imply that Old Cutters is currently in breach of any annexation obligations to the City or that it does not have the intent or financial resources to meet any future obligations to the City. Indeed, I understand that the City and Old Cutters have successfully renegotiated the annexation fee payments and that no payments are currently due. Moreover, I supported the Old Cutters annexation. I think that the developer has done a very nice job on the project, and I commend it for the green development aspects.
In sum, my concerns relate to the Hailey 2-step annexation procedure and the closed-door workshops—and do not relate to the developers.
Martin A. Flannes
Hailey