City Council - Regular Meeting

Sorry, folks, we're just waiting for Zoom to connect in the back room here. While they troubleshoot Zoom, we're going to go ahead and call this July 20th, 2026, meeting of the Whitefish City Council to order. Once Zoom does come on live, Councillor Caltabiano will be joining us remotely. He's on fire duty in Montana somewhere. And Councillor Sweeney is excused this evening. We will start with our Pledge of Allegiance. And Daniel, why don't you lead us this evening? You were up. Thank you. Daniel, we'll move on to communications from the public. We do have two public hearings advertised under item six of the agenda, although we're gonna hold the ordinance and resolution public hearings as one public hearing. Otherwise, if there's anything on the agenda you would like to bring to the attention of the council or comment on, now would be your opportunity or any other matter you would like to raise with the city council. Thanks for coming.

Good evening. DC Haas with the Whitefish Fire Service area, 103 Mallard Drive in Kalispell. In your packet tonight, there's a letter to the county commissioners asking that they support our proposed rate increase. There is a sentence in that letter that says you haven't been briefed on what our ask is. And you may have heard in your work session that we'll be asking for 6 FTE to help with staffing with White Twitch Fire, which is an immediate fix to what you heard again in the work session from your chief and assistant chief that, You're close to 10 days without the total hours without the correct staffing and relying on mutual aid. Our hope is to get that FTE in place to help so that second call is more easily staffed. The county commissioners set the rate for a fire service area. We are not a fire district. We are a fire service area, so we collect that flat rate fee. Our proposal to the commissioners is to go to a step plan, which is what's used in a fire service area in Lewis and Clark County, where we would base our ask on um improvements not the overall tax value but just improvements of homes which should be much more palatable than the fire district where the total property is taxed so thanks for that letter of support um and again it's uh for six fte that's going to be the ask along with that we are looking at a remodel of station 22 and a future plan of course is uh land uh in the East 93 area for another station. Um, but we'll, we'll need land for that. Um, but that's, we're more focused on that immediate need of six FTE, which is the big, the big ask.

Thanks VC. Um, just for clarification, are you referring to paragraph three where It begins with, although we have not yet conducted, et cetera. Yes. Just striking that sentence.

That's up to you. I'm just providing you information that we feel as though, and visiting with the chief and assistant chief, that the 6FDE would help immediately, of course, after hiring. But we would need an MOU, of course, with the city for that. But that is our goal, was to get six more firefighters hired to help with that second call that's going unanswered. Great. We'll bring that up and address it with our city manager when that item comes up.

Thanks for coming tonight. Thank you so much. Did you have a question, Rebecca? One question, VC, please.

Is your rate for a firefighter $140 a year as well?

$140,000? Yeah. Annually, yes.

Okay.

Thank you. Further comments from the public?

I'm Dave Kaufman, 4610 Highway 40 in Whitefish. I'm a member of the board for the Whitefish Fire Service area. My comments in general will be directed towards the benefit of viewing this for the entire community. The six FTE that we're proposing is in response to request for additional services from our constituents. And in analyzing the challenge, we also recognized what the chief and the assistant chief spoke to in your work session. Whereas currently with the current staffing, If they're busy, the closest fire engine is Columbia Falls or Big Mountain or Evergreen. With an initial six FTE, that will allow for two responses to come from the Whitefish main fire department. So it goes directly to what they were talking about now. Currently, we're incredibly underfunded. Part of it is because past boards didn't see the need or didn't have the foresight to anticipate additional funding needed. But at this point, we are significantly underfunded. I'll pass out a sheet there for you guys to work at. But effectively, just for a brief comparison is, Our effective rate, while it's not based on a mill rate, the flat fee that we charge, $180 a year, is essentially nine mills. The average... mill rate for other fire districts in the area is 40. So we're significantly behind. If you reduce that to costs per address, Big Fork has about 4,600 addresses that they service, and their costs are about $411 per unit. Columbia Falls Rural is approximately, excuse me while I'm a little behind here, I guess I don't have a fee for them. Evergreen, who's also at 6,800 units, is at $469 per unit. And WFSA, our whitefish service area, is lagging behind at $139. We've talked to all the commissioners. There seems to be some reluctance from at least one of them to recognize that we're kind of a unique situation here where the service area and the city fire department work hand in glove. And because of the the geography of the area where the service area surrounds the city of Whitefish and the fire department has responded to the outside. It just makes sense for us to continue this relationship working hand in glove. Partnership probably isn't the correct word to say because there's kind of a client relationship here where you guys have the trucks and the men and stuff, but we pay you. But perhaps an alliance. or a joint venture going forward for us getting additional funding to provide additional equipment and manpower for you guys to be able to help service our area is a better way to put it. But it is going to require support from you guys to show the commissioners that that if 40% of the calls are currently occurring outside the city limits, we should be paying 40% of the cost. You know, rough figures. But it just seems that we've identified the fact that we're underfunded to the point where we can't pay our fair share, not that we don't want to, but we just need help in making the commissioners or helping the commissioners see that there's a genuine need here and that it costs a certain amount to provide medical and fire protection regardless of whose name is on the side of the door. And in fact, by doing it the way we do it now, we save a lot of overhead from administration and things like that. So it just makes sense in the long term to stay with what we have. It's working if we can just figure out a way to start paying our fair share. So thanks for your time.

Thanks, Dave, appreciate your time. Further public comments this evening?

Sir. Hi, Reynolds Cameron, Nine Glacier View. I have one question tonight. What is a neighborhood? The answer is already written and the sources agree. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recently standardized the appraisal about what a neighborhood is a congruous congruous group of complementary land uses. So not not identical, but complementary. In our own zoning code section 1192 says boundaries between neighborhoods are formed by factors such as railroads, highway rights away, major streets and severe topographic constraints. So observable boundaries railroads highways One thing not on the list is price point or construction date Now applied that there's a neighborhood in this town whose roads were deeded on April 20th 1926 100 years to the day after this council approved the vision whitefish 2045 It is bounded on every side by the exact kind of features or code names, BNSF tracks, the upper slopes of Lion Mountain, Whitefish Lake Golf Course, and Highway 93. Over that century, it has held homestead cabins, logging families, a trailer park, senior affordable LIHTC housing, multifamily homes, and more recently, large custom single-family homes. Inside that neighborhood sits a subdivision that is 10 years old. Its homes cost much more than the ones around it. And I already hear the argument, we're a different neighborhood. Our houses are richer. If a price creates a different neighborhood, then every new subdivision becomes its own neighborhood. And neighborhood character means whatever the newest buyer says it means. This is not what definitions that we've laid out say. Differences within a neighborhood are complementary. That is the definition. Boundaries are the railroad tracks, highways, and that's what our code says. 90 years of neighborhood came first. Neighborhood character is shaped over generations, not claimed by the newest decade. You cannot buy in at year 90 and claim that history starts when you arrive. So the next time this council hears the word neighborhood character, please ask yourself two questions. First, where is the neighborhood boundary? And second, what history defines that neighborhood? If those questions can't be answered objectively, the neighborhood character becomes more of an opinion rather than fact. Thank you.

Thank you, Reynolds.

Daniel. Mayor, Council, Daniel Sitter with Housing Whitefish here tonight. I wanted to give you a couple updates from Housing Whitefish, where we've been. As you know, you're supporting the Workforce Rental Assistance Program. We just wrapped up our first fiscal year of the three-year agreement, so I just wanted to give you some numbers and updates on where the program has been. So we launched this program in March 2024, and we started sending out payments soon after. To date, we've served 131 households in Whitefish. That's 262 individuals and 88 kids that are living in those homes. One of those families just sent me a message and said the program has been a lifeline. They grew up here, they're trying to raise their 11 month old and being close to family and this program has really just allowed them to stay. So I think this program in many ways is serving the people that need it the most. Consistently we're seeing that there are new businesses represented through applications. So 90 plus businesses have been represented. And in total, we've spent or committed $439,000 and 75. And so just kind of framing it for the price of building a modest single family home, we've served 262 individuals in this community. We know that it's not just the numbers in terms of the money going out. We're starting to look at some different models of how we can actually understand what the overall economic activity is associated with that. So we know on average $278 per month is what we're providing in rental assistance. Even if we're going conservatively, if we're saying half of that money is being spent locally, We're also looking at combined economic activity freed up. So we have avoided costs that landlords might not, might be incurring from having to have vacancies. We're having potential public money that is, you know, folks that are maybe becoming homeless or having to go through the eviction process. So there's a lot of public cost savings there. And so I think for every dollar spent, depending on if you want to go conservative or conservative, If you want to go really liberal on terms of how much the economic activity, I think we can say for about every dollar we're spending, it's about 65 cents to about $1.25 in terms of the return. So I think in terms of this program, talking about this and hearing the council, there's multiple levels of impact there. So thank you for the continued support for that. Two other quick updates. So council, you guys committed funds for us to hire somebody along with the housing authority to manage the legacy homes. That was in May. We got that applications out in June and we've been hiring and we've been had We have final interviews this week. I think we have some really good candidates, so hopefully get somebody in here soon. And then we'll be really starting to ramp up some of our outreach to get folks on the waiting list for Legacy Homes. We know there's a lot of those units coming, so just wanted to give you an update there. And then lastly, we do have a new office space we share with Pablo over here with Real Outdoor Solutions. 560 Spokane the yellow house I like to say we have a little office in back and we'll be there through November and then we're going to be moving over to the Riverside Plaza kind of catty opposite side of the building from explore whitefish so you now have a place to officially find me besides the coffee shops and kind of wandering the streets so that's all I got thanks Daniel keep up the good work further comments from the public

Any volunteer board reports from the public tonight? Any volunteers? Council? Rebecca?

The tree committee met and we walked Kalispell Avenue because the arborist got a grant to take out green ash and replace with other types of trees. We don't have the Is it emerald borer something? I'm so bad at the names. Sorry. We don't have the bug that destroys the green ash yet, but it's en route. And so if people are wondering why the tree committee is taking them out, it's for that reason.

Thanks, Rebecca. Anyone else? Not seeing any, I'll move on to the consent agenda. You have the regular meeting minutes from the June 15th, 2026 meeting and closing the packet. I'll entertain a motion. Rebecca.

I move to accept the consent agenda as written.

Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor.

Oh, Giuseppe. Andy beat me. That's okay.

All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, likes on, and I assume Giuseppe voted in favor. Kind of breaking up there, Giuseppe, sorry. We'll move on to item six, which are two public hearings this evening. And Dana, is it okay to hold just one hearing for both the ordinance resolution?

Yes, I think you can hold one hearing and make two separate motions.

Two separate motions, great. So we will begin with ordinance... 26-9 adopting amendments to the city's impact fee ordinance and this will be on a first reading Laney All right.

Good evening mayor and City Council tonight. You are presented with amendments to the city's impact the ordinance and and a resolution updating recommended fees for water and wastewater for which there are respective public hearings are now one. For some background, an impact fee is any large charge imposed by local government upon new developments to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. The city has assessed impact fees since 2007 with several updates approved to the policies and rates since then. uh... city imposed impact fees for parks paid trails city hall police fire water and wastewater under the term of public facilities but the state legislature redefined the term public facilities more narrowly to only include water wastewater transportation stormwater law enforcement emergency medical rescue emergency management and fire protection facilities to comply with these changes to state law Rates and policies for impact fees were adopted with Ordinance 2512 and Resolution 2533. And impact fees for parks, paved trails, and city hall were eliminated, as were the 5% administrative fees that were no longer permitted. Impact fees that remain in place are for police, fire and ambulance, water and wastewater. Ordinance 2609 outlines the history of impact fees in the City of Whitefish and describes the most recent changes pursuant to Senate Bill 133 of the 2025 Legislature. the city subsequently contracted with consultants to survive to prepare and update to the water and wastewater components of the service area report and impact the study in accordance with seven dash six dash sixteen oh two and seven dash six dash sixteen oh three of the mca I want to note here that the ordinance presented in your packet has a typo referencing 7-6-1303 of the MCA instead of 1603. And this has been corrected on the original ordinance document for signature after the second hearing to be held on August 3rd. Tischler-Brice prepared a draft study dated October 29, 2025, which was reviewed by the Council on January 5, 2026. This study was revised to take into account updated costs of capital projects that are part of the study as well as data in the updated 2025 Housing Needs Assessment. It was reviewed by the Impact Advisory Committee with approval of the service area report and impact fee study dated July 10th, 2026, recommended by the committee and staff. Exhibit B of the ordinance in your packet incorrectly shows a date of June 11, 2026 for this study, but the date of the final draft of July 10, 2026 will be reflected as such in Exhibit B of the signed ordinance document for the August 3, 2026 meeting. There's also a public hearing for Resolution 2618. approving amendments to the rates and policies for impact fees assessed by the City of Whitefish as reflected in the updated study dated July 10, 2026. The new maximum supportable fees for water and wastewater are shown in a table on page 2 of the staff memo in your packet, which is page 85 of your PDF. and page 8 of the service area and impact fee study provided in your packet, which is page 42 of the PDF of your packet. The water impact fee was reduced as a result of the cost of the water storage tank project coming in under anticipated total project cost and a reduction in the water consumption by 23%. Similarly, there was a reduction in water consumption in wastewater of 20%, accounting for a reduced rate and future capacity enhancements in piping will be paid for with existing cash reserves rather than future impact fees resulting in a further reduction in the wastewater impact fee. The fiscal year 27 budget accounts for the reduction in impact fees, impact fee revenues in the water fund and the wastewater enterprise funds. And staff respectfully recommend adopting ordinance number 2609, reflecting amendments to Title 10, Chapter 2, of the Whitefish City Code after holding a public hearing. And staff also respectfully recommend adopting resolution number 26-18, approving amendments to the rates and policies for impact fees by the City of Whitefish after holding a public hearing.

Thanks, Laney. Great staff report. Any questions for Laney on either the ordinance or resolution? Rebecca?

Just to clarify when when we're at the maximum supportable fee is that the fee that we are adopting.

Yes.

Okay.

For both water and wastewater. So if you look in that table it shows the new ones and then them added to get a combined rate.

Okay great. I just wanted to be sure that that's what we were actually going forward. Nice to see the reduction in rates. Thank you.

Excuse me, if you could refresh my memory on one point. You mentioned in here the review established a decrease in water consumption at 23%. I feel like maybe we talked about this months ago, but could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Sure, when we did, or when Tischler, our consultant, prepared, they did a study dated September 29th, 2023, and then More recently, they did one in October of 2025. And it was in that particular study where they recalculated the usage based on what we provided them at that time. So the amount of water that we were recording as using that we provided for the 23 study was reduced. And we got that information from our utility billing department. They helped us provide that information. And I think Dana worked with Rose on that. And what we're finding, whether it was from conservation or seasonal rentals not occupied to the fullest extent, they determined that we were using less water for both on the water side and on the wastewater side because we're measuring it going in and out.

Well, that's good. Thank you.

Craig, how much do you account for the I&I work that we've done in terms of that percentage?

I would say the bulk majority of the wastewater reduction is through I&I. A significant amount of the water consumption on the drinking water side is cast iron water main replacement. Nice, good work.

Additional questions? Not seeing any, we did advertise for one public hearing on what will be ordinance 26-9 and resolution 26-18. Any public comments this evening? Michael.

Hi, Michael Hein, 612 . This is in response to Ben. You had a question at a prior impact fee advisory committee meeting about why the percentage of projects paid, the percentage paid by impact fees is so low. We had at our recent Impact Fee Advisory Committee meeting, we had a discussion about that and one of the things that came up was that some of the fees that are charged are financed for 10 years and the 10 year time window is what impact fees can be collected for legally. Some of those can actually be collected for longer because the financing window can be longer or the life of the improvements we've overbuilt. So we overbuild the water tower. The water tower accounts for more water growth than what is needed in the next 10 years for whitefish. However, we still have to pay for it. So when you look at the total cost of the water tower versus what we're collecting for the impact fees, it looks like a very small percentage. But we can continue collecting those impact fees after that period because we've overbuilt the capacity, but growth going forward can be charged for a project like that. something to be considered for future road if if we go down the road collecting road impact fees would be wrote sometimes will not that that the percentage of that would be paid immediately by impact these are small going farther down the line we could continue to call collect those fees for projects that are then the allowable maximum allowable percentage That was just kind of a, you had asked that question at a meeting earlier this year, and that was part of the answer to what you were asking. So that's all. Thank you.

Great example. Thanks, Michael.

Additional comments tonight on these items?

I don't think there's anyone online, but I will.

Anybody online who would like to comment on the impact the ordinance or resolution please raise your hand. I think we're good.

I'll go ahead and go ahead and close the public hearing on ordinance 26 dash 9 and resolution 26 dash 18 and turn it back to the council Andy.

Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve ordinance number 26-09, which is an ordinance adopting the amendments to the city's impact fee ordinance, and that would be on a first meeting.

Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second it.

Seconded by Councillor Caltabiano. Further discussion? All those in favor? Ben?

Can I just make one comment for the benefit of the public? I just want to point out in this technical conversation what just happened was The city found a bunch of water leaks and very old pipes, fixed them, reduces the overall net water usage of the town by 23%. That's quite a bit, or at least a whole lot of the 23%. Therefore, reducing our required capital investment going forward. I think that's a good example of spending money to save money. And so I think when we're out there digging up you know, Highway 93 South and making a mess and, you know, replacing pipes and working on pipes. You know, this is a very real, tangible reflection of that fact. And so, anyway, I think that's a good thing to see. And I love paying less fees. I think it's great for everybody.

Thanks, Ben. Rebecca?

And also to celebrate most homes have a three quarter inch meter for water and we reduced that by three eight hundred sixty four dollars. I think my math is right. It used to be well now it's four hundred four thousand four hundred nineteen dollars and it used to be seven thousand. Let's see if I can get it. Is that right Craig. It used to be seven thousand nine hundred and forty four now it's four thousand four hundred nineteen and that's usually what you have in a single family home.

That's for both water and wastewater.

Oh for both. Good. So we're moving in a good direction. Thank you.

Thanks Rebecca. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand. Those opposed like signed and that motion does carry unanimously.

I'll make one more than Resolution number 26 dash 18 and that's a resolution to approve amendments to the rates and policies for impact fees assessed by the city of Whitefish Is there a second to the motion?

seconded by councillor Cornell further discussion all those in favor, please raise your hand those opposed like sign Giuseppe I Okay and that is unanimous Michelle for those present this evening. That brings us on to item 7 of our agenda which is communications from Dave Taylor our planning and building director. We'll begin with consideration of a request from GMJ LLC for a 5 lot minor preliminary plot located at 100 and 102 Murray Avenue, and the property is zoned WR2, which is our two family residential district. Good evening, Lauren.

Good evening. So before you, you have a five lot subdivision request. This is located over at four existing properties along Murray Avenue and Ramsey Avenue. It's near the Veterans Peace Park, if you're aware of that location. The request is for five new lots that will be accessed off a private driveway. The applicant is requesting three subdivision variances, one to permit a T-turnaround in lieu of a cul-de-sac, one related to shared access designs that does not meet fire department standards for flag lot configurations, and one to allow private driveways to serve seven residential dwellings where the standard only permits access serving up to two lots or three dwellings. The adjacent land uses, to the north it is undeveloped and is zoned as an I2 in the Flathead County. To the west there is an existing cemetery that is zoned WSR. To the south is mixed use, zoned WR3. And to the east is residential, zoned WR2. We conducted public noticing on June 23rd and 24th and to date we have received four comments with concerns about the subdivision. Those were included in the packet. They largely contained two traffic impacts as well as mature tree retention. In reviewing the subdivision request, we have quite a few criteria that we review. Some of the findings that were found was that the proposed subdivision does not have a negative impact on public health and safety because the fire department reviewed the proposal for conformance with fire code. The property is not located within a mapped floodplain. Access is proposed off of a public street and the amount of traffic generated will not have adverse impacts on local streets. The proposed subdivision is within an urban area and is not mapped winter range for big game. Therefore, the subdivision would not have a negative impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat. The subdivision does not appear to have negative impacts on local services and facilities. There are no negative impacts on agricultural or agricultural water user facilities. The project complies with the growth policy because the property zone WR2 and WR3 proposed use for the subdivision is single family and duplex which are compatible with the urban edge neighborhood designation. The growth policy that is being referred to is the one that was adopted most recently for clarification. The subdivision does comply with the zoning code as well as the subdivision code. And that was that for the review criteria and then leading into the variance request there are additional review criteria that was also included in the staff report. fire department did review the proposed access request and determined that the driveway and t turnaround can meet emergency access requirements with conditions those were included in the staff report in reviewing the variance criteria it was determined that public health would not be detrimentally affected strict compliance with the regulations would impose an undue hardship due to the existing lot's configuration and access. The applicant is not claiming an economic hardship and granting the variance will not substantially increase the public costs. Finally, granting the variance will not place the subdivision in nonconformance with adopted regulations. We did include a couple of conditions, six and seven address tree maturity and tree retention, as well as 10 and 11 addresses fire code requirements of having a no parking fire access only sign at the T turnaround. Do you guys have any questions for me?

Thanks, Laureen. We'll start with Ben.

Is this our first subdivision reviewed under MLUPA?

This is grandfathered in the old regulations. So this is not a MLUPA subdivision.

And just curious, if this was an MLUPA subdivision, what would have happened here?

It would have been an administrative review. So we would have done noticing as usual, but it would have been administrative and issued administratively.

OK. And could you help to clarify under what criteria we are to evaluate this? Like specifically, we have three variance requests. Are we to be evaluating the variance requests, essentially? Or are we to be evaluating the project in its entirety?

The project in its entirety, to my understanding.

OK. My second question has to do with Murray Avenue. There was some questions from the neighbors about the status of Murray Avenue. And Craig, I was wondering if you might have any view as to the suitability of Murray Avenue for additional traffic flow.

Yeah, we've gone over and over with this project at site review, and we're comfortable with the proposed layout. I know Cole's not here, but I can speak for him as well. FIRE has reviewed this and feels comfortable with access.

Okay. And so the concept of the – I guess is it a driveway or a private road or whatever we want to call it – The main issue for the applicant is presumably that our required rights-of-way are too big. It doesn't fit on the site plan.

You know, I guess I didn't read the letter. The required right-of-way.

The rights-of-way, so the, I think the road that's proposed here looks like it's 20 feet wide. Correct. But the variances are being requested because. We would require 50 feet or something like that?

Well, if it were to be a public road, correct. Yeah, but it does meet the National Fire Code for emergency ingress, egress.

Okay, thank you. Other questions for Lorien? Andy, then Rebecca. Oh, sorry.

So Lauren, as I look at this, so are all five lots accessed off of Murray? And then my second kind of follow-up to that question is there's that little strip of land that goes all the way out to West 2nd, as I take it, that is a portion of lot three, correct? So would there ever be any access one to lot three, or are we looking at off of 2nd, or is everything going to come off of Murray?

Everything would be accessed off of the private drive, teed off of Murray. And so there'd be no access ever conducted from 93.

There is actually access off of Ramsey as well.

So it's essentially a- Lot three would have access off Ramsey also. I believe so.

And one.

Is it, I believe it's one and three. It's already like a driveway. off of Ramsey that goes down the hill there.

It's one and three correct.

Rebecca.

Yeah I guess I just have a procedural question is why why are we not doing the variances separate from the preliminary plot.

So the preliminary plot would not be able to be proceed forward without a variance grant. So they would not have a developable project without the variance. And so they have to be combined.

I guess I'm just used to where we usually have two separate processes. But now everything's being bundled where we have to do, okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca. Additional questions for Lauren? Okay.

So Craig, I know we have had applications from other subdivisions like up in Around Lionhorse only it's a different one where the our standards for streets were not built and then they came to us later because they wanted us to take over the street because they wanted us to maintain them and we refused to do that. So do you know what I'm talking about.

Yeah that was Tamarack Ridge.

And then how is that different than this. This would also be a private road built to their standards not to ours. So we would never take it over for anything right.

That's the intent. Correct.

OK. And why why do we allow people to build not to our standards.

Well, I mean, this is essentially a glorified driveway. It's just built to the National Fire Code standards so that we can get a fire truck or an ambulance in there. But it would never be intended for public thoroughfare.

Okay.

It would be open to the public, but it's a private road.

Do we have any other places in town where there's a T intersection for turn around other than this one because I couldn't remember. I thought Ben had one. Oh OK. All right. So we do have.

Yes there are others.

OK. All right. Thank you.

Additional questions for Lauren. Not seeing any I would entertain a motion for item 7A. Rebecca.

I this is where there's public that might have wanted to contribute to the conversation and I made the mistake thinking it was a public hearing because I have never never seen it presented like this before. And so would it be OK to have the public give comment to this or not.

Very briefly. I know they're here and present and did submit a letter but please briefly. Any public comment on this item. Are you are you a neighbor. Let's go with the neighbors first.

Good evening, thanks for the moment here. My name is Brett Thompson. My parents are Ken and Karen Thompson back in the back row there. We own the 104 Murray Avenue property, which is directly south of lot five, you can see on this property. So it fronts onto Murray Avenue. Just to be short, main concerns, privacy loss, traffic increase, and property value loss. The tree loss in the back is a major sound buffer from the train that's in the back there. It's also privacy just for us to not have neighbors in the back. A lot of that is our property, so that would be remaining, but a lot of it to the northwest wouldn't be. And to have a house right there behind a property, behind Murray Avenue, would be in our direct line site. So that would be infringing on our privacy. The back little area in the trees is also an animal corridor. Millions of deer come by. They come through the train track district, then they cross over by that pond across Ramsey Ave, and then come through and directly out of town on the south there. Traffic increase Murray Avenue is a tiny road. There's no gutters. There's no drainage system There's just a low-lying little ditch area on the sides So I don't know how the runoff water would be protected on that the garbage truck pulls in Empties one side of the street and then he has to back out and use a private driveway to do a u-turn To be able to access that and so I don't know how the garbage situation would work on that end lot there um there's seven dwellings on the west side of murray avenue seven more doubles the traffic flow to that so it destroys the cul-de-sac feel of this dead end road property value loss is a selfish topic but i think it's worth considering we paid extra attention and paid extra money to get a property with the kind of privacy that this property gives and so to add a bunch of variances to this property for this proposed development takes away from that somewhat of a zero-sum game the owner of the developer benefits from that variance and the neighboring properties kinda they take the loss on that side so i think that those concerns all directly tied to the three variances that are requested and that really shows you the level of suitability that the site has for the proposed development if you needed only one variance or no variances obviously this would be a lesser con conversation but because there's three variances it shows that the suitability of the site is maybe not there for this size of a development we bought a property thinking that there would be maybe a property with three dwellings on it one day accessed most likely off ramsey avenue because that would be the fronting road for that site and now we're looking at maybe a seven site property so you can't fault someone for building what's permitted under current zoning But variances should consider neighboring impact, I believe. So thank you for your time.

Doug Patmeyer, TDAH Engineering. I'll be really quick. Just to kind of comment on this. This is three existing lots going into five lots. Variances don't prevent development. They're there just so there's extra oversight. The fire chief has commented. This is reviewed for and approved for a T-turnaround. The traffic on Murray is gonna be less than 30 ADT. The trigger for TIS is 200, just to kind of put it into context there. All lots do not access Murray. There's three that go on to Murray, and two that go on to Ramsey. The final design, there was concerns that there's no design. As you guys know, that's a process that we go through after this. Geotech was submitted with the project. Tree preservation is part of the building permit review process. And yes, multiple variances. That does not mean this property is not developable. This is an infill project. These lots are uniquely shaped. and they have topography. If we could run a street through, we talked to staff about that, we would have done that. You can't do that. That should not prevent this property from being developed. We're not pushing zoning. We're not pushing density. It's just a unique project. There's a reason for variances. It's so that you go through extra oversight, and that's what we're doing. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Doug. With those comments taken, I would entertain a motion one way or another, and then we'll have discussion.

I would move to approve the request from GMJ LLC for a five lot minor preliminary plat located on 100 and 102 Murray Avenue.

Is there a second to the motion? I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Furey. Further discussion?

I'll offer a brief comment. Please. I understand it's unpleasant having something new being built behind you when it hasn't been there in the past. I think from the top level view from the city, I do think it's very important though that we do allow people to build neighborhoods or develop their property in ways that are compatible with the community as a whole. I will observe that this project as proposed does follow our zoning regulations, which have to do with density and other things of that nature. I do find the subdivision or the variances that are requested have to do with road construction details. And I do think that the variances are largely unrelated to a lot of the neighbor concerns. I just want the neighbors to know I do hear your concerns, but I don't think, you know, for example, making a cul-de-sac back there is necessarily going to help. So in any event, I find the request reasonable, so I will support its passage. Thank you. Further comment? Rebecca.

I'm going to be voting no. I think it's a really large impact to that area with not enough data right now to see how it will actually impact the rest of the neighbors.

Thanks Rebecca. Giuseppe any any comments this evening.

Not seeing any, we will, Steve, sorry, go ahead. I just want to address the public comment tonight. I do appreciate your concerns. And as somebody who's had things built behind me that were unpleasant, I understand where you are with those. And I also, Doug, thanks for your comment too. The first thing I thought was why don't they just put a road all the way through to, between Ramsey and Murray. And I guess it makes sense that you just can't build one in there. But it is unpleasant sometimes when previously undeveloped property gets developed around us. That's part of living in Whitefish, unfortunately, these days. And we can't prevent people from building. And as Ben said, the variances deal with the road and not the lot structure or the buildings or anything like that. What can they, how can they provide access for, safely for fire? And I think that those kind of variances are the ones that we have to take seriously and I will be supporting this.

Thank you, Steve. Further comments? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. And those opposed, like sign. And the motion does carry on a four to one vote with Councilor Norton voting in opposition. We will stay with Lauren and move on to item 7B, consideration of a request from Jamie Givens for a minor Whitefish Lake and Lakeshore variance to increase the height of an existing dry stacked stone retaining wall within the Lakeshore protection zone located at 300 Skiles Place. Lauren.

Alrighty, so this one is for, as you just described, it's for 300 Skiles Place. At the property currently existing is a dry stack stone retaining wall as well as a dry set stone patio. The retaining wall predates the Lakeshore Protection Regulations and has previously undergone a couple different permits in the past, back in 2002 as well as in 2018. The lot is unusually shaped and is significantly constrained by the zoning setbacks and easements that reside on the lot. The residence is nonconforming and the area between the house and the retaining wall functions as the property's only usable backyard space. The previous patio sloped towards the lake due to the grade change between the house and the top of the retaining wall. During the current homes remodel, the patio stones were removed to allow construction equipment access due to limited maneuvering space on the lot. Back in May, the Planning Commission denied a setback variance for a deck in the lakeshore protection zone that was set to provide reasonable use, outdoor use, finding that it was too invasive. The proposal for this application is to increase the height from roughly 40 inches to 52 inches of the retaining wall. This is to achieve even grade of the patio, make it more reasonable, more usable outdoor space for the property. Because the retaining wall exceeds the height of four feet, it therefore requires a minor variance under the Lakeshore regulations. The applicant is also proposing to reduce the construction area within the Lakeshore Protection Zone to approximately 404 square feet. Previously, it was ballpark around 640 square feet, so reducing 200 square feet of construction area or impervious surfaces. The reduction removed the non-conforming status and bringing the property fully into compliance with the current allowable limit. Staff conducted noticing on June 27th and as of today, no comments have been received. And considering a minor variance of the lakeshore protection regulations, we do have a few criteria. In reviewing of the criteria, staff found that because a lot of configuration and limited buildable area prevents the patio from being level without a modest increase in the height, in the wall height, strict enforcement of the standards would create an undue hardship. Because the physical constraints of the site prevents the use of a compliance terraced wall or any workable design, no reasonable alternatives exist. Because the project is located entirely lakeward of the existing wall and reduces the construction area within the lakeshore protection zone, it will not create adverse impacts on the lake or lakeshore. And finally, because the project reduces construction area, increases vegetation, improves shoreline stability, granting the variance would provide a general public benefit. There was a public hearing held on June 10th of 2026 with the Lakeshore Protection Committee. At that meeting, no members of the public spoke. The committee did vote in favor of recommending approval to the council. The application was voted on a three to two with Bramer and Rowles voting against and Peschel abstaining. Don Herring was absent from that meeting. As part of the recommendation, they did include In addition of a condition reading for 20, city staff will be notified when construction begins for inspection of adherence to these conditions set here. Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions for Lauren on her staff report? I had two, or maybe I'll just combine it into one. Under item D, nature of the proposed work, I'm pretty sure you covered this in your review, but states the patio will be surrounded by 1130 square feet of sod and 420 square feet of planter beds with cedar mulch. I assume that's all out of the LPZ, correct?

Some of it would be contained within the LPZ. So it's converting existing stone patio to mulch and vegetative areas.

But in particular the sod?

I believe some of the sod would be in the lakeshore protection zone.

So there's no variance request for the sod placement because we don't allow sodding in the lakeshore protection zone?

Not from what I recall but I can look at the regulations.

Yeah if I'm not mistaken it was 20 years ago since I sat on that committee but is that correct Dave?

Yeah as far as I remember I mean native grass or native plants are you know what we normally put in there. I mean in this situation it's been disturbed with the retaining wall behind it so there's no natural shoreline on there but but yeah typically grass would be a variance.

So should that be a variance request on this application.

Yeah I mean they could probably propose some kind of a native plant instead of sod there. Yeah but they probably should have included that as part of the request.

Where is the elevation? I can't read the drawing. It's too pixelated, but where's the demarcation of the 20 foot setback in relation to the wall? Is it towards the lake or is it actually behind the wall?

I think it goes behind the wall. I mean, it's obviously modified because of the retaining walls changed the elevation. Sure. I think there should be a site plan that shows where the lakeshore protection zone is and the 10 foot setback.

I probably just can't read it. but I don't, yeah, I didn't see one in the packet. My point bringing this up is I don't think we've ever approved the placement of sod in the LPZ. So it is in the lakeshore protection zone. So is this all native planting? Yes, it is.

So they could theoretically just shift that line? It could be a condition.

Okay.

I just throw that out for consideration by the council obviously can't motion a condition. Additional questions for Lauren. Please.

It says a John Deere mini excavator will be used for the subgrade preparation of the patio if possible. And then later on it says it will all be done by hand. So it'll be hard. So can we eliminate the that line where the excavator is put in here or.

Yeah you guys could amend it if you would like.

Did it did it not be used.

I mean is it OK to use it in the.

Yeah because I think the site will be fully reclaimed. The only way to perform the work is with a mini excavator. Can't do it with manual labor.

So I thought we always protected it. OK never mind.

I would entertain a motion one way or the other.

I would go ahead and make a motion and that is to approve the Whitefish Lake and Lakeshore variance to increase height of an existing dry stack stone wall within the Lakeshore protection zone located at 300 Skiles place and then also the permit and I would add a condition number 21 that there'll be no sod placed within the Lakeshore protection zone.

And Giuseppe second.

Go ahead Giuseppe.

I'll second.

I was going to second Andy's motion with his additional request condition.

Seconded by Councillor Quinnell further discussion.

I guess just doing that ensures that we don't get any grass in the in the Lakeshore protection zone and that they follow the regulations and replace it with native native plantings which is what is specified.

Do you want to make the condition that more specific than just no sod? No, that's the regulations.

I mean, that's in the code right now. And I think there's a lot of reasons for that, but one of the biggest ones is people put herbicides and pesticides and fertilizers on their lawn, and that's right in the lake, particularly in a very shallow portion of the lake where we see a lot of nutrient loading anyway. So that's really not the place we want to see a lawn.

I believe that will be condition number 21. 20. No 21.

The Lakeshore Protection Committee added a 20. OK. Now the city staff will be notified when construction begins for inspection. Perfect. Of adherence to conditions set here.

Thank you. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks Lauren. Good to see you tonight. We'll move on to item eight communications from our city attorney and it will be resolution 26-19 allowing the destruction of municipal records in accordance with state law. Angie.

Good evening mayor and council members. This in reality is just kind of a housekeeping resolution. So under state law we're required to retain public records in accordance with the Montana local government records committee schedule eight. If you ever have insomnia I suggest that you read schedule eight. This is something that we're already doing to be frank with you. So this is just again kind of housekeeping. Section 754124 MCA provides that upon written approval of a city council and where applicable with permission of the local government records destruction subcommittee, a city officer may destroy records that have met the retention period set forth in Schedule 8. So again, we're already complying with Schedule 8. We just kind of wish for blanket authority from the council to proceed with destroying records in accordance with state law. There's no financial requirements or impacts associated with adopting the proposed resolution, and staff does respectfully request that the city adopt it. I can try to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks, Angela. Any questions for our city attorney? Not seeing, Rebecca?

Yeah the only comment I'd like to make I read through Michelle was kind enough to send me Section 8. I stayed awake and it's you know mostly destroy after 10 years and most of it's permanent. But the only problem I've had as a city councilor is sometimes Finding city council records or local government review records was difficult. Luckily I hoarded them so I could access but I'm not going to be hoarding anymore. And so so I just think if there's any way to just keep in mind that we will have another local government review commission and you know committees that might want to reference our historic records of what people have done before as volunteers that might be good to keep.

I have a question comment Mr. Mayor.

Did you have a response first Angela to Rebecca's comment.

Sure Rebecca I will say that I think in the past 10 years our record keeping has become a lot better. I credit Michelle a lot with her organizational skills and so I think we've gotten better but you're right. I think there's always room for improvement.

Giuseppe. Yes. Thank you Angie. I also. I didn't ask Michelle or you, but I went and found MCA Schedule 8 and 7 and so on. And I guess we are complying with MCA already. And it's the difference between Shell Destroy versus May Destroy. in the fact that so far the city officer needs to have approval from the city council, while this ordinance will amend that to where the city officer will not need approval from the city council. That was just first to clarify my understanding. Am I correct with that understanding?

You're correct, this would just allow us to comply with Schedule 8, not have to bring, every time we want to destroy a public record, not have to bring it to you folks. I'm thinking you probably don't want to approve every time we destroy something in accordance with the schedule.

So just to make sure, this resolution delegates authority in perpetuity. There is, or is there, I couldn't find it. Is there a period, like every three years city council can review it or it's just indefinitely?

It would apply indefinitely. I think you could maybe add some language to the resolution that every three years that we can come back to council and ask for them to, I guess, re-up that authority if you were so inclined.

No, I mean, and then thank you. That brings me to my last question. How does the city staff or the city officers, how do they decide the criterion for which to destroy records? I mean, until now, they would decide, come to city council, city council will have a discussion, vote either ways. Now, is there a standard criterion or every time a record becomes 10 years old, we're going to delete it and why?

I guess I don't really deal with that aspect of it. Just that Michelle might have a better answer but we look at the retention schedule sometimes it's three years sometimes it's 10 years. There's certain records that need to be held in perpetuity we can never destroy. So my understanding is we look at the schedule and maybe Michelle can maybe not just that's there's really no criteria. We just follow the schedule.

Okay, so until now, you guys follow the schedule. You came to us, to City Council. You explained that normally City Council would say, sure, we vote unanimously to let you do what you already recommended us to do. Is that the kind of routine that it's been happening so far?

I don't think we've ever gone to Council to ask if we can destroy it again because we've been following Schedule 8, which is what we're required to do under state law.

Okay, thank you. I think the reason why this is being brought to you is we realize that there's a statute or an MCA stating that we need to have a policy or a resolution stating that we need your guys' permission, whether that, I don't know when that MCA came about. MCAs come about all the time without us being aware. recognized about it. So I don't know exactly when that came about but I think we realized that we didn't have that policy put in place and so we are just asking for a clarification and that policy to be recognized for us to continue to do what we've been doing.

And I'd also add that the number of public records requests that we've had in the past five years have definitely increased. So we've been dealing with quite a few public records requests. They're taking up a significant amount of time although the planning department has been instrumental in helping. I used to do them and Michelle used to do them and now the planning department is our short term rental specialist is actually doing a fantastic job in wrangling those so.

Steve thank you just a quick clarification because it sounds like I think some it seems like the fear is that we're destroying all city records after 10 years that's not the case correct that is not the case it's just very it's a very small set of city records that there's some been destroying without necessarily an ordinance in place and we're just cleaning that up correct

Correct. So if you read Schedule 8, I mean, some things you're required to keep for three years, some things you're required to keep seven years, five years, ten years, and then some things that you're required to keep perpetually, like litigation files.

Ben. Would it be... What do other municipalities do. OK let me back up. So I actually did go and briefly look at Schedule 8 at the last minute right before the meeting. I didn't have a lot of chance to look at it but some of these felt like quite short. I mean just to be clear you know a lot of emails are three years council agendas are two years building plans are one year. Do other cities like set their own schedule like this seems like a minimum doesn't it. Do other cities set their own schedules.

I have never heard of another city setting their own schedule. Could you do it. I suppose. But I think when the state you know creates this kind of schedule I mean we we can only keep so much information for so long. Right, so yeah, it's just extra storage. No, I don't know of any other city that don't follow schedule eight. We're required to follow schedule eight, so that's what we do.

And just to clarify, we've moved to the digital world over the past five years, 10 years, I don't know how long it's been. Since I got here, it was a transition. We weren't doing it when I first got here. So 12 years ago, we were paper mostly. As we've moved to digital, it's a lot easier to retain documents. And so most things that are digital are retained. What's really hard to retain forever is the paper documents because, well, the basement of City Hall is half of what we needed, just the way the costs ran and how the building had to be developed. And so it's all about the document storage requirements. And when we're saying storage, we aren't talking about digital, although that will come into effect eventually. Right now, our retention on a lot of our digital documents, we aren't removing digital documents at this point. It is paper, physical documents that we're really focused on, just because of the storage capacity that we have at City Hall. And again, there are, Schedule 8 is very specific what you can and cannot. And anything over 10 years old, actually, it's not even your authority. We actually have to, it's over 10, right? We have to go to the actual review office 10 or 15 years. There's certain criteria for older documents that we actually have to go through this review commission with the state. They get to tell us if we can destroy records. So it's outside of your purview as well. So that is where the retention schedule is. so complicated and detailed bringing those to you. We could do that but it will take you a very long time to review every record. And we do that you know a few times a year just with all the departments making sure that they're they're documenting what is being destroyed. So we have a list of what is being destroyed. It's not that we don't have a list of what we had before. It's just that the document itself has been destroyed. So. Again this is a process we've been following to our knowledge we haven't seen a resolution or an official policy that's been adopted. But this has been in effect since well before my time and Michelle's time. So that's even a lot longer.

Rebecca.

Yeah and I sent you guys Michelle sent it to me and I sent it all to you by email this morning or afternoon. And so but if you read through it you'll see there's a lot of stuff that we got rid of but the main pertinent parts of our history like city council minutes are kept in perpetuity. You know so I think we should just go ahead and move this forward. So if it's OK I'll make a motion. Please. To. approve resolution number 26 dash 19 a resolution allowing the destruction of municipal records in accordance with state law.

Is there a second. Seconded by Councillor Quinnell further discussion. All those in favor. Ben. Sorry.

If I would just make a quick I am going to vote against this motion and I'm sorry I'm not trying to gum things up I just. I just look at section, this Schedule 8. I didn't have a lot of time to review this before this meeting because it came out the last minute. But it felt to me that there are areas of documents in here that have a shorter timeline than I believe it should. uh... building plans for example being one of them what if there's a dispute down the road about something relating to what was built uh... or maybe we wish we had for more than a year and so uh... i i completely agree with your goal of trying to get rid of a lot of these old paper files and i'd be supportive of a lot of measures to do that but uh... this feels a little overly broad and i i don't think i would personally want our city policy of document destruction to be this going forward. So that's why I'm not going to vote for this. Thanks.

If it's OK with the second.

I move to withdraw my motion and postpone to the next city council meeting to review so people have time to make amendments.

That's OK with the second motion is withdrawn. There another motion. There is a motion on the table to postpone to the August 3rd meeting. All those in favor please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign and the motion does pass on a 4 to 1 vote with Councillor Caltabiano voting in opposition. And Steve, just for the record, Councillor Quignell is excused for the rest of the meeting. Giuseppe?

There must be a delay because I voted, from what I see, I voted at the same time as you all did. So I was in favor with the latest motion. And I was in support of Councillor Davis' comments. I agree with them.

Okay. So that was a 5-0 vote in favor. Michelle? Thanks for coming Steve. Feel better. Move on to item 9A you have Dana's report enclosed with the packet. Any questions for Dana on her city manager's report. Dana anything additional to report on.

Not this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move on to item 9C and it's a consideration of amending the Northwestern Northwest Montana Community Land Trust ground lease for homes and I'm in Whitefish. Kim how you doing. I have two requests on the agenda. Is this the one about changing And if you'd like, you could address both items in one comment.

The annual increase each year would be $9,000, 3% of $300,000. And so if somebody were to sell it one year later, they would sell the home for a maximum of $309,000. Or if it were 10 years later, it would be a maximum of $390,000 because it did not compound. And that made perfect sense when those homes in that neighborhood before the pandemic were in that $300,000 range. It probably felt very manageable. Now those homes are up. were sold originally at more in the 400 to $450,000 range. So that 3% is actually a 15,000 or $12,000 increase every year. So a home purchased for $400,000 sold the next year would be 412 or sold 10 years later would be $520,000. And it soon becomes obvious that that is not necessarily sustainable at the rate that we're going because currently market rate in whitefish over the last three years has been increasing at one point 4% over the three-year period, not 1.4% every year, but only 1.4%. So these homes in Trail View are increasing at a much faster rate than the rest of the homes in Whitefish in that size and age category. What we'd like to propose is that we, not retroactively, but just going forward, as those homes come into the land trust, when we put a ground lease on them, we actually use the same resale formula as what we do with all of the other homes in the Flathead Valley, which is the homeowners are allowed to sell the home for 100% of what they paid for the home, plus we get an appraisal done a market rate appraisal and they get 25% of whatever the increase in the value of the home is during the period of ownership. So it's 100% plus a quarter or 25% of the increase during the home ownership. I think that feels more sustainable long-term and also makes it, a little similar across the board, whether you're buying a house in Kalispell, Columbia Falls, or Whitefish, everybody's doing the same thing. So that's my initial proposal. I imagine you might have some questions.

Any questions for Kim?

Yes. What about the habitat homes? Because I know you have first right of refusal when they sell. Are you bound to the 3% by their program or will that go to 25%? No.

They have in their sales for all of the houses that they've now put us as first right of refusal, they use the 100% plus 25%. So it would be the same as those as well.

Andy, and then Ben.

That makes sense right now, but how do we look at that in periods when we have a lot of hyperinflation? What if we have a 28% increase year on year, and 25% of that is 7% increase then in price to the value of that home? And then if you do that, and we did that for several years in a row, granted that was a little unusual, and we have settled back, but I would be concerned in another hyperinflationary period in housing prices that it could work the other way, right? Right.

And that's a fair question. The homes that we are dealing with in Kalispell right now, those homes were purchased in... They were purchased after the last crash. So they started out at $100,000, let's say. And we've seen them now change hands two or three times. And even those homes that have changed two or three times, because you only get 25% of whatever the market's doing, you're not getting 100% of what the market's doing. Now those homes are more in the $250,000 range or $200,000 range. So as I watch that, where the market is doing this, even after the pandemic here in Kalispell, what the community land trust homes are doing is it's going up, but it's going up at the same, it's not going up as rapidly, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. So it feels maybe a little more fair to people that they're seeing their price is related to what's happening to their neighbor's house, I guess, as well. Maybe not. Maybe they don't think 25% is enough, but it manages to allow people to put some equity in their pocket when they sell the house, but it still keeps the house completely affordable going forward. You don't have to keep subsidizing it is the other benefit. So.

To Andy's point, I might just piggyback on that. Would it ever make sense to include both formula calculations, whichever is less?

In both formulas, it does say that that's the maximum amount. So you're not guaranteed in either way that you calculate it. You're not guaranteed that the maximum amount will be purchased. What I find the challenge is, is it's very easy for somebody to calculate 3%. Oh, I paid $400,000 for this house and $12,000 every year. But when you're getting an appraisal done, there's a little more, well, you get what you paid for it plus you're getting 25% of whatever the market increase has been. People seem to, they're mentally calculating every year, oh yeah, another $12,000, another $12,000, another $12,000. They don't necessarily come into the negotiation with a preconceived notion of how much it is. And so it's very hard to negotiate with somebody who's already had it in their head for the last five years that they're getting $12,000 every year. Thank you. Ben.

Would you like a motion?

Yes, please.

I would move to approve the request from the Community Land Trust ground lease. Is there a second to the motion?

Yes, I would second it.

Seconded by Councillor Caltabiano. Further discussion?

Kim, you have me convinced. Oh, great. I think just to expound on one key element of your your points here is that if if you have for example flat property prices our method goes up by three percent a year your method does not so you get so our method goes up and up and up and up whereas i think that tracks the market a lot better your point i think is extremely valid but i would also say that like it's probably a very small number of years where we have such significant property price appreciation It changes the dynamics of that. So plus I think in general it sounds like the other two entities do it this way and it doesn't make sense for Whitefish to have her own thing. So anyway as somebody who wrote this years ago I recognize the fact that this is a better way and so I will support the change. Thanks.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF Thanks Ben. Further discussion. All those in favor please raise your hand. And those opposed likes on and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks Kim. And you're welcome to present on the next item as well.

We have an opportunity to buy 506 Trail View in August. And the purchase price for that home is 400 and, let's make sure I've got the numbers right, $443,525. And we're hoping to sell it to, I don't know, a woman and her two children. She works here in Whitefish. We're very excited about having her here. We've been doing a little bit of work on the house to get it ready. Had a little roofing issue, which is the first time that's come up in Trailview. So we're working through that to make sure she's got a nice solid house to move into. And so I am proposing that we I'm requesting to the city of Whitefish for $50,000 to help us purchase the property under that home.

May I ask a question? May I? Go ahead. Kim, actually not Kim, Dana, would this $50,000 come out of the Affordable Programs Fund on which budget?

Thanks Giuseppe yes so the proposal is to utilize the affordable housing fund first we and there is a typo in my staff reports I put that we had four hundred twenty seven thousand dollar appropriation it's actually four hundred seventy two thousand dollars so a little typo there on my part we have the funds available and at this point our intent is to utilize the affordable housing fund that will leave ROUGHLY, NOW I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CALCULATE IT. I SENT IN AN E-MAIL JUST A LITTLE BIT AGO. WE WILL HAVE ABOUT $43,000 REMAINING AFTER THAT THAT'S NOT IDENTIFIED FOR ALPINGLOW 2 OR THE WORKFORCE RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. WE WOULD HAVE $43,000 REMAINING UNTIL JULY

first 2027 am i correct correct in that fund correct and uh kim please thank you dana kim remind me this 50 000 become part of the title of whoever owns that property so when they sell the property that amount stays with the property? How does that work? Or is there an option for that money to return to the city?

What happens is that that money is used to purchase the land under the house and that land stays in the land trust forever. So it basically is a permanent reduction in the price of the home. right so that money is now is to the land trust to the yes okay thank you thanks just go ahead so this would be the first house that we use that 25 rather than the three percent formula on so thank you i would entertain a motion

Okay, I make a motion to approve $50,000 coming from our affordable housing fund for the Northwest Montana Community Land Trust to release the deed restriction and provide, oops, sorry, to purchase 506 Trail View Way.

Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by Councillor Davis. Further discussion?

I'll let Rebecca speak first. um in the minutes it says this is the eighth agreement that the city manager has executed with you yeah thank you it's the eighth agreement and the 14th house that you've helped purchase in trailview awesome thank you giuseppe yes uh i'm i'm very happy that we can do all of this and uh and the trust the land trust is doing an amazing amazing piece of work i i think decisions like this one tonight trigger my concern towards maybe focusing on a more structured set of criteria on how to allocate these funds. Because my concern is, you know, Daniel Cedar's organization is doing an amazing job. Habitat for Humanity are doing an amazing job. The Land Trust is doing great. And they're competing. At this point, they're going to be competing for that part that the city at the beginning of the next year budget has already almost depleted because we're left to $43,000. This is great news, don't get me wrong, but my OCD brain says, I wonder if there is a way to put some structure and rules of engagement so whoever partakes into affordable building enterprises knows how it's going to work out and what to expect.

Giuseppe, I'll just kind of touch on that a little bit. So for the resort tax fund, we have two housing funds that have money available, the property tax levy and then resort tax. For resort tax, council has directed us to create a grant panel and have the community housing committee create a grant process, application process and criteria. for requesting funds. So we're working on that for the resort tax fund and the community housing funds that we collect through resort tax. This one we haven't done so. The majority of the costs are under contract with Housing Whitefish for the Workforce Rental Assistance Program. It doesn't mean that we can't utilize that grant program that we're creating a grant panel to also consider these funds. One of the things I think our housing groups do well together is they're communicating all the time and I think most of them know what requests are coming forward. And so right now I wouldn't say that we have the competition of beating each other out yet. In fact most of them I think know what all the projects are that are going on. And we do know, I do know that we will have a request from Habitat come forward shortly for another piece of property in Whitefish to assist in the purchase. So that's why we'll utilize resort tax for that one. So we're just kind of managing the dollar amount of the requests and utilizing the property tax levy and then going to resort tax. But I do agree that we want to have a more formalized process and this year, In the budget work session, we talked about how I worked with the housing groups to try to identify how much we wanted to utilize of the resort tax funds because the community housing fund was, the affordable housing fund was pretty much utilized at this point. Other than that, you know, $90,000 we'll say. The resort tax dollars though are definitely an area where we had to kind of implement together, work together to come up with some budget items. So on the resort tax, we do have more funds available for Northwest Montana Community Land Trust. We put in, we tentatively identified 180,000 in there. So this will be the last one you'll see come out of the affordable housing fund this fiscal year. They'll shift to that fund. We know that we have other pilot programs that might come through and then development. I understand your concern on this fund and that's what we started working on with this budget cycle knowing that we couldn't get it done in time. So that'll be the process that we try to work on for future budget cycles.

If I can just add one more encouraging comment. I appreciate your concern Giuseppe but honestly one of the best things about my job is that I get to work with a team of people who all are just as concerned about housing as I am and I love working with Habitat. I love work with working with Whitefish Housing Authority and Housing Whitefish and I get I get the best benefit because every time something one of those organizations does a lot of times it benefits the land trust because eventually those houses go into the land trust and we get to manage them in perpetuity. So while I totally understand how in some situations the competition might SEEM GRUELING. I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S COMPETITION. I FEEL LIKE EVERY TIME SOMEBODY WINS, I GET TO BE PART OF THAT WINNING AS WELL AND TRY TO HELP THEM AND SUPPORT THEM HOWEVER I CAN.

THANK YOU, KIM. AND I SHOULDN'T PROBABLY HAVE USED THE WORD COMPETITION. MY CONCERN IS THAT WE, THE COUNCIL, DECIDE ON A ONE-BY-ONE BASIS. on a first-team, first-serve basis, meaning I personally do not have that picture that you have. For all I know, next city council, some developer who has some great projects that are deemed affordable might come in and ask for $43,000, and we will decide with the same heart and the same criterion we have decided tonight That, to me, says that we're a little bit knee-jerking our vote versus looking at it under a holistic and more long-term planned way.

I always enjoy a good plan.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Kim. Thanks for the comments. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. And those opposed, like sign, and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks, Kim. Thanks Daniel. Thanks Russ. We will move on to item 10 A which will be resolution 26 dash 20 albeit coming a bit late since it's July 20th and not June 19th. But nonetheless a resolution honoring and commemorating June 10th. And the reason this is a resolution I did get that question from one of our council members. It's for the purpose that this resolution will be in effect in future years and it'll be a standing commemoration for June 19th. So I don't envision this being read every year. It'll be part of the public record in this formal city statement. So this is a resolution of the city council the city of Whitefish Montana. honoring and commemorating Juneteenth, whereas Juneteenth, also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day, celebrates the emancipation of those who have been enslaved in the United States, and whereas the 19th day of June is officially recognized as the day when enslaved people in Texas learned of the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation that had been issued by President Abraham Lincoln more than two years earlier. And whereas Juneteenth has been celebrated annually on June 19th in various parts of the United States since 1865, becoming a symbolic date to honor African American freedom and reflect on the long struggle for civil rights. And whereas the strength of character demonstrated by former slaves and the descendants of former slaves remains as an example, for all people of the United States, regardless of background, religion, or race. And whereas honoring and commemorating Juneteenth is consistent with the City of Whitefish's long history of being strongly committed to the ideals of equality, diversity, and inclusion to create a community in which all people are afforded the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the city of Whitefish Montana as follows. Section 1 all of the recital set forth above are hereby adopted as findings of fact. Section 2 the city council the city of Whitefish Montana hereby honors and commemorates Juneteenth as a pivotal moment in American history and essential part of our nation's heritage. Section three, the City Council of the City of Whitefish, Montana encourages all residents and visitors to participate in Juneteenth celebrations, to reflect on the progress made towards equality and to commit to the ongoing fight for justice and civil rights for all. And this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and signing by myself. Thank you very much for listening. We will move on to.

You'll want to. We do need to vote on it. I would entertain a motion. And it's resolution 26 19 19.

Yep. Rebecca.

I make a motion to adopt Resolution 26 19 honoring and commemorating Juneteenth.

Is there a second to the motion. I believe it's 26 20. I thought it was 20 as well Dana.

You guys postponed the records retention so now it's 19.

Good job Rebecca.

I believe that was seconded.

Somebody's paying attention along with Michelle.

Seconded by Councillor Fury further discussion. All those. Please.

You know slavery still exists in the world. And so I think just reminding people to stand up for civil rights and freedom for all is really important. So thank you.

I have a question. Mr. Mayor, I have a question. I've already asked this question privately, but I'd like for it to be answered in public. Why is this a resolution and not a proclamation?

Thanks Giuseppe for the question. So we've done this as a resolution for two reasons. One this will be an ongoing statement by the city council that you are commemorating and honoring Juneteenth. That would be an annual it'd be in effect annually moving forward. And then also because all of our holidays are set by resolution. However this one is not a paid holiday as it is not described in here as a paid holiday. So that is just so that it's an ongoing acknowledgement of this holiday for the city.

Thanks, Giuseppe.

Andy, did you have a comment?

No. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign, and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks, everyone. We'll move on to item 10B. You do have a letter that we've drafted to the Flathead County Commissioners on behalf of the Whitefish Fire Service Area. Any comments on the letter as drafted? Excellent job, staff, preparing this. And I understood his comment earlier and from the board, but we haven't been thoroughly briefed or detailed on their proposal, so I prefer the language as it stands.

just a quick comment and I think that's the problem they've had with their constituents too is they haven't been formally briefed and presented with a plan that makes any sense and has any thought behind it and so I think it's something that they're going to have to have to come to grips with here in the near future and I don't know that's why the county commissioners have sort of rebuffed them or not but I think there's really not a plan there and that's a that's a problem so

In the minutes Frank requested an attachment of the call log and I don't think he requested that the whitefish service area ladder was attached but it was the call log and something else but tonight we heard that what they really want is six more firefighters so You don't think we should attach that.

So you know when it when you look at like what percentage I know Frank asked about the data. So if and it's a little difficult to actually come up with the data when you look at response to motor vehicle accidents in the fire service area because typically if they had their own fire department they would send an engine and we would send our ambulance. But the way that those records are maintained they just show up as ambulance calls. But if we were to take solely the fire calls that are by jurisdiction and what we respond to, and keep in mind, we respond all the way to, we go to the airport, we go to the national park if we need to, we go to Big Fork, I mean, we go quite a few places. But if you look at our call volume, For just fire related calls about 534 and of that 200 were for the fire service area so it represents about thirty seven point five percent of calls and For our budget because I know Frank had asked about this they're paying about twenty four percent of our fire budget right now so essentially they should be paying that thirty seven and a half percent at a minimum and And that is a subsidy of about $215,000 based on fiscal year 26's budget because I don't have the official numbers yet for fiscal year 27 with the property taxes yet. So had to do that. So that is still a subsidy. I know the request for six FTE came out to over $700,000 that they're requesting to increase assessments. But the one clarification that I haven't gotten is are they anticipating those six firefighters being stationed out of our station or are they asking that they are staffed at the Hodgson station? And that's where there's still a few questions that I even have to say that we've been fully vetted yet on that. The one thing I will say is that the county commissioners have just simply refused to hold a public hearing, but I do know that they are hearing from other constituents in the fire service area with concerns about that proposal.

Well, and the reason why I asked Dana about this is it seemed like this was a very general letter, but maybe if we came up with a specific ask, they might consider meeting our request, but it might be premature.

It's not really our ask. It's the service area's ask.

What I what I did suggest Rebecca and I think we can do that is with the letter when we send it we can attach a copy of the interlocal agreement and the amendment we made to it that shows what the payment requirements are for that agreement because they might not know exactly what that is right now and at least we can show that you know in 2036 you have they'll have to make a payment of five hundred and forty four thousand dollars So whatever their assessments are, if you're gonna keep delaying the question, it's easier to incremental slow increases instead of all at once, but it could come time where they have to do that. And so we can definitely attach that interlocal agreement with the most recent amendment to that so they can see what the payment schedule is. Again, I don't know that this letter is gonna have a significant effect on their decision, but at least we've done our due diligence in informing them of what would occur if they default on payment.

If you can hear me, Giuseppe, both, well, Steve left. You're obviously not here. Dana, is it easier if I just leave this in my box and they can swing by and sign it at their convenience so you don't have to necessarily be here, Michelle?

Yeah, I think that would be great.

Okay.

We could, yeah, we could have it, we could probably have it at the front desk downstairs too, whatever is the easiest.

I mean, if it's all of us, It's all about signing. Can't we say sign by the city council of Whitefish represented by the mayor since we're all in agreement?

We could adjust it and have it come from the mayor on behalf of the city council as well.

That's fine, just to get it out the door.

Yes, good idea.

Then I have to come back in and sign.

Okay. There is this thing as a sign nowadays.

Thanks, everyone. We'll move on to item 10. See a letter that we've drafted the DQ requiring quarterly reports and contractor updates for the town pump petroleum release any comments on this letter again. Nice job to staff drafting it. All right, I think we're good to go on that. Dana. Not sure Michelle provided me a copy of that letter to sign but if.

It's in your packet of things to sign here at the end of the meeting. Thank you. That one is just because there's so many council members.

I appreciate it. Finally, or not finally, second to last item, 10D, a request from Samaritan House for participation in resort tax discussion and consideration of future funding partnerships. Any comment on this letter? Seems like we're getting hit left and right with requests.

mean I guess my comment would be that they're a great organization we've got too many people knocking at the door for resort taxes it is now and it's not something that I think that I would support and I'm pretty much I can speak for the resort tax committee I'm guessing that they probably would so we just have a lot of demands on that we made a lot of changes and we've added a lot of things in the last few years and it would require us going back to the voters and I know guessing there's very little appetite for that on our

I concur with Andy.

Thank you Giuseppe.

I'm putting on a different hat. I'm also the vice president for the Samaritan House Board of Directors. And I thought since Cassidy is not here today I'd just give a little background information because it's things that I think are important to understand that even as a board member I did not know when I started. Samaritan House is a shelter with 30 beds for dormitory and transitional housing. The organization also has 14 transitional apartments where we collect a small amount of rent and then we have 30 apartments that are permanent that are also very very very low income rent levels. And then we are building 18 new family unit apartments that are two and three bedrooms. And so it's more than just a shelter it's a spectrum of housing. And one of the things that I'm thrilled about is we hired Cassidy Kipp last fall to kind of take Samaritan House to the next level of management. She's looking at all sorts of new sources of revenue because what we've discovered is that the shelter and the apartments that have been there for. over 30 years have had a huge amount of deferred maintenance. And so we're currently doing a million dollars worth of deferred maintenance work on the shelter thanks to a grant from the Department of Commerce. But it's a completely out of date furnace system, plumbing, dormitory bathrooms that had to be taken down to the studs to be redone. It's a huge project. And one of the things that Cassidy pointed out to me is that we have people living in our very, very low income apartments that commute and work in Whitefish. So when I think of the shelter, even though the Kalispell Police Department takes on most of the issues that are related to any kind of incidents at the shelter, It's actually serving the entire county in terms of providing the very lowest level of rental income to people who work in Whitefish and work in Columbia Falls and work in Kalispell. So I just wanted to share that information with you and thank you very much.

Thanks, Kim. Great organization. Thanks for what you do.

We do, I know I've talked to Bridger about this, we do take people down to the warming shelter at times, right, Bridger? Not just people that work in town, but people that are moving through and don't have a place to live. So I am very much supportive of using resort tax monies. to help them because they are the only place in the valley that works on transitioning people from homelessness to being housed. And there they've had some great successes recently but it's a hard population because they're starting from ground zero. So just for the record I think we should consider it.

Thanks Rebecca. We have a final item which is 10E. I don't know if there's any direction or commentary needed on the Whitefish Lake Institute work session last meeting.

I guess only if council has other, wants to discuss further items that they brought up. We have the DEQ letter, but they also talked about fireworks, if there's any interest in talking about that. It could be setting a work session for a later date, or if you guys are comfortable just remaining. I know that the fireworks show, if you're considering prohibiting fireworks, the chamber, we need to work with them sooner rather than later.

Yeah I don't think we have the need right now for a work session personally. But maybe later on in the years we start planning for July 4th. We can hold that meeting if that's OK with council. And we'll start with councilor comments.

Giuseppe would you like to start tonight.

Good luck tomorrow be safe.

Ben. I was wondering if there was any after action report from the Big Sky Festival and the excessive crowds of people that have been in town for the last couple days.

So Deputy Chief Conway attended that meeting today and I haven't followed up with him on that but just from the call logs from the weekend we were busy but I don't think it was any different than a regular busy day in the summer of Whitefish or a weekend. Actually I think everybody behaved pretty well. As for the concert out there, from what I understood, it was the normal. Some theft, some alcohol-induced disturbances, those type of things, but the county took care of them. And I know Cole and the Whitefish Fire Department were very busy out there, but I think it went off pretty good. It was sure busy in Whitefish, though. Yeah. Couldn't get breakfast yesterday, I know that.

Yeah. Cole indicated this evening that The sponsor you know Johnny Schake covered the full. Costs of police fire emergency response plus some. So our costs and out of pocket was covered which is good to hear. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Good to hear.

Yeah just two things. One I do think the cell coverage for people that live here was down all week and I and I know in the past they've had a cell tower an extra one. I wondered if that had happened and if we can negotiate something like that in the future. You know anything about it Dana. Sorry could you repeat that.

I'm sorry could you repeat that.

Oh cell phone coverage and being able to access the Internet was really a lot slower and I thought that was fixed previously with them bringing in their own cell tower. And I just wondered if there was if you knew anything about that for next year.

So they did bring on in cell towers. I know at the event and I saw a post about that actually. So I think access at the event is easier now to get coverage. I do know because my stepson called us FaceTimed us there actually so he had enough internet to get FaceTime working. In town you know I don't know that it's just under the big sky that's causing that problem or just in summertime I've experienced this with my cell phone coverage that it's pretty difficult this time of year. Whether Verizon or other carriers plan to do improvements I'm not sure because it's kind of a seasonal issue but at least the big concern was not having internet or cell coverage at the event should something catastrophic happen but that is improved to my knowledge.

The only other thing I wanted to say is congratulations to Lanny for an excellent audit with no findings. So well done.

Thanks Rebecca. Andy.

as long as can still hear and versus her to a notion thing about this this is a question that came up by brought up when we had our resort tax association meeting and one of the questions i asked nobody in the room seem to be able to answer this reporting deed restricted housing out there that has it restricted appreciation value No one could come up with whether or not the state actually has that same mechanism in their appraisal process for deed restricted housing and

It's a fabulous question. I'm not the expert to explain to you what they do or how they do it, but I have developed a very good relationship with the local Department of Revenue. And last spring, we spent a fair amount of time talking about particularly what was going on at Trailview, but just deed restrictions in general. And my understanding was they adjusted how they value properties based on, they do take into consideration that the homes can't be sold at market rate in the future, and so that impacts and allows them to lower the taxes a little bit on those properties, but what that formula looks like or how they do that, I'm not the person to explain that for you, but I do know that it is very much on their radar.

yeah not because one of the things that did come up during that discussion correct me if i'm wrong data but that there would be some kind of legislation possibly coming forward in this next session to address it or at least provide for a formal application process possibly and if that's the case i think it's something that we would certainly all want to get on board with okay and we might want to suggest it to you know our local senator here dayburn or somebody because it's I could see something falling through the cracks possibly. It's like unless you're going in and saying, hey, these houses are this, how are they going to know?

Right.

They're not searching deeds for restriction.

And for me to put a ground lease on it, I have to call them and say, I need a separate assessor number for the improvements and two different assessor numbers. And they give me a new assessor number and a new legal description. And so they do absolutely have... all of that. Just the straight up deed restrictions, I don't know how they keep track of that. But it is recorded with the county so they must have some knowledge of it. I will tell you that every other land trust in the state as a non-profit does go to their county and perhaps their city too, and says, we would like the nonprofit discount on property taxes. The Northwest Montana Community Land Trust is the only one that does not go and ask for that nonprofit discount. When the organization was started, it was, that the people who are living in those homes are still using the roads and still using the schools just like their neighbors are, so they probably should pay the same taxes as what their neighbors are paying. But I do appreciate that the Department of Revenue takes into consideration that those people are never gonna be able to sell their houses at market rates. Does that help?

Very. That's all I have. I don't have much. I just wanted to commend the city and in particular the parks department and public works. You know our green belts both businesses and the city's portion of the green belts on 93 all of the parks in town just look Absolutely spectacular as do the roads Craig thanks so much for the diligence with the striping this year and just the overall conditions of the roads and the overlays they were completed last year has really made a huge difference in town and I think you guys knocked it out of the park just in time for our peak tourist season at least our summer season. And that's all I had this evening. Dana anything else from staff.

Great. You want me to take this one? I need to correct the record for something I said earlier when we were talking about impact fees. For some reason, I had it in my mind when we were talking about the reduction in the 23% and the 20%. I was thinking about water leaving the water plant and going to the wastewater plant. The numbers that are in the impact fee study are actually based on individual household meter readings. Ben, sorry. I took credit for that, but it's really not entirely me, or really me at all, I think. It's described in the report that the bulk of the decrease in that gallon per EDU is really threefold. It's Higher occupancy in homes during the last impact fee study. It's weather related, you know, less irrigation. And then also conservation efforts that the city has really been pushing. So while we have seen reduced water loss through cast iron water and water main replacement, and I and I work in the sanitary sewer collection system, that's not reflected in the impact fee study. Sorry about that. You want to withdraw your comments.

No I'm just kidding.

Thanks Craig.

Anything else from council? Giuseppe. Thanks for joining us remotely. I know it's a lot of fun. And on that note we are adjourned.

It is hot in here.