Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City of Sheridan's August 24th, 2026 study session.

It's 5 30, so we'll go to go ahead and get started.

We have five items on the agenda.

And we'll jump right in with item number one, which is discussion of ordinance 2306-26.

The de-annexation of 1.5 acres.

4,672 or 4672 Coffee Avenue.

And with this is our city planner Kelly Schroeder.

Welcome, Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, council.

So the city received a petition to de-annex this parcel of land located at 4672 Coffeine Avenue, which is currently uncladded.

1.5 acres in size.

This was previously annexed into the city just a few years ago in 2022.

And at that time it was zoned R3 residential.

We don't have anything in our code about de-annexation, so we follow what state statute says.

But this following state statute, the petition to de-annex was filed with the city on June 23rd.

And then within 10 days of that filing, the petitioner published a legal ad in the paper notifying the public that they were requesting to de-annex.

And then within 60 days of that filing, the Board of County Commissioners approved a de-annexation report, which was just last Tuesday last Wednesday on August 19th, 2026.

That de-annexation report is included in your packets.

I'll go through a brief summary of this.

Basically, it outlines the service and fiscal impacts if the property were to be de-annexed.

And there would not be very many service or fiscal impacts, given that the property is currently served by SAWS Water and City of Sheridan sewer, so that would not change for the county.

The access for the property is currently off of US 87, which is a YDOT maintained road, so the county would not see any of the service or maintenance impacts to that.

Law enforcement would shift from city police to the sheriff.

Emergency response would shift from Sheridan Fire Rescue to the Sheridan area rural fire protection district.

And then there'd be a slight change in property taxes with the mills.

So the standard county mill would still apply.

So all equals out to 23 mills to 18 mills.

So fairly negligible to the county in terms of their fiscal impacts if this were to de-annex.

However, that report does emphasize that the property lies within our urban service area and that community development principles should also be considered with this de-annexation.

The county's report also requested that a record of survey with an accurate boundary description be uh provided should this be successful, and that's something that the city would like to see as well.

You'll notice in that petition to de-annex the legal description provided is the same legal description that's on the warranty deed, which is rather incomplete.

It just describes a point of beginning and then 100 feet to the north, 393 feet to the south, etc.

It doesn't provide any bearings and distances for being able to locate those lines.

This is kind of like a de-annexation report from the city as well.

The property lies within our joint planning area boundary, which is that one mile radius uh around the city, and our urban service area.

If de-annexed future subdivision of the property would still be considered under that JPA boundary, meaning the MOU with the county would apply, and all city infrastructure standards would apply.

So if that property were de-annexed and then the petitioner chose to subdivide the property, they would still have to put in roads, water, sewer at a city standard since that's uh available to the property and adjacent to the property.

Uh the city is currently providing saw's water to the city, saw's water and city sanitary sewer service to the property.

If it were to be de-annexed, the rates would increase to outside city customer rates.

If de-annexed, future development of the property will remain subject to the international fire code requirements regarding fire apparatus access roads and hydrant spacing.

It is located in an area of logical municipal growth where several adjacent or nearby properties have already been annexed.

And again, uh city staff would request that record of survey to be filed with the de-annexation ordinance with an accurate description of the property.

So just to kind of point out where this is in relation to other city properties, they have the GIS image up here.

The yellow is city, so it is adjacent to city uh here to the south.

This is the Woodland Creek or Woodland Woodland Park is across the road.

This is Woodland Creek Estates.

Um across uh US 87 there is Whitney benefits, and then if you kind of zoom out a little bit, you can see that the city really is growing kind of in this south direction with Woodland Park across Woodland Creek estates across.

I get those two confused all the time.

Um but there's the two city subdivisions down there and additional city land that's kind of uh naturally grown south there.

Uh staff sent notification to 42 surrounding property owners.

We also published a legal ad in the press regarding uh the planning commission meeting and the uh city council public hearing.

We did receive a few phone calls from surrounding property owners inquiring about the purpose of the de-annexation, but no specific comments or concerns will were received.

Um I will say that we erroneously sent out a handful of mailers that did not include an actual letter in them.

So we're not really sure how that happened, but once we discovered that happened, we resent letters to all 42 surrounding property owners.

So thankful for the people that called and asked what is this empty envelope about, so that we realize that we made that mistake.

Um tonight staff recommends that planning commission and next week city council uh deny this de-annexation uh petition.

However, if uh planning commission or council chooses to advance this item, staff would request that uh there's a condition that the applicant provide an accurate record of survey for that parcel.

Are there any questions?

So in 2022, this was basically annexed into the city.

Correct.