City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It uh is 7:10 this evening and we start our meetings at 7:10. So, I think we shall begin. I'd like to bring this meeting uh regular meeting of the city council to order for this Monday uh April 20th. And um I'm on. Is this any better?

Okay, we'll try. Anyway, we'd like to call this meeting to order this evening. Uh the mayor is quite ill this evening with a bad case of the flu. I think he'll be fine, but uh he sounded awful when I talked to him this afternoon. Um and uh Ben Davis is excused for this evening. Um with that um I'll call this meeting to order. And first order of business is the pledge of allegiance. And I'm going to call on our longtime planner certain early retiree uh Wendy Compton reading to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you for stand for all

Wendy. Thank you. Next we have communications from the public um scheduled. This is for any matter that is not a public hearing. Uh, anything on your agenda that is not otherwise a public hearing this evening? Mike, mic's on. Okay.

Um, this is not a public Michael Hine, uh, 612 LER. Uh, this is not a public comment on the growth policy discussion, but it is an offer. I don't know if I don't think there's any of our other um committee commission members here, but during your final deliberations, if you have questions about why a decision was made, you could ask the planning commission if it's not clear from staff. So, it's just kind of an offer that if there's clarification needed, it's possible that me or one of uh one of the other commissioners, if they're on, could could lend some light on why a decision was made or why a recommendation was made. Okay.

Yep. Hi, my name is Andy Best, 28 Willowbrook close. I'm here on behalf of the Willowbrook Homeowners Association. Um, we've had some concerns about the Armory improvement project. Uh first of which is the city's asked for an easement for a storm wa storm water outfall structure um in our public common area the the Parkland area and a few concerns been raised about that. The first one is additional flow from uh the storm water could up the hundred-year flood plane which could increase flood insurance or require flood insurance for some of our homeowners. So, if there's any anything that you could say or or maybe it's more of an engineering question to um ease the concerns of some homeowners, I think that the odds of getting this easement would be increased. The other concern is just the aesthetics of the outfall structure. We've had some people working with Morris and Merrily to discuss that. So, I think that's moving in a positive direction. Um, our homeowners are also concerned about um it's my understanding that there's going to be a crosswalk from the east side of Armory Road onto our parkland. Um, this is a raised concrete crosswalk with a yellow flashing light to my understanding and some as part of the conditions of approval for the subdivision back in '94. The um, one of the conditions was that we maintain the pathways for our common

area. I think my I think our concern is that this is basically becoming a public or a city arterial main arterial for pedestrian traffic. So, some of our homeowners feel that the city should be involved with the maintenance of these pathways. Um, additionally, we have a bridge that's failing and we don't have the funds to replace it right now. Uh it is some of the homeowners opinion that this bridge is failing because of the high point subdivision and the increased flows through Cow Creek. Uh basically our abutments are failing. I think this is evident because the city's bridge is also failing and has been condemned and it's also uh to my understanding supposed to be removed as part of this armory project. So um I'm not here today to about stuff. I I I think it would be in all of our interest to get this project through, but it would go a long way as far as us voting on this easement, which is a big part of getting this project through in my understanding. Um I think the homeowners would be a lot more likely to allow it if the city was willing to work with us on maintenance of these structures and pathways. So today, I'm asking for a couple things, a couple different options to present to our homeowners. The first one would be that the city take over maintenance of the bridge and pathway. Um, and then the second one would be is the city willing, if we were to grant them the entire parkland, um, would they be willing to maintain it as far as mowing, plowing, um, taking care of the pathways and spraying for weeds along the river, um, in exchange for just granting them the entire park. So either of these things, if you could consider them, I'd appreciate it. And again, I think it'd go a long way towards getting this easement approved

with our homeowners. Thanks, Annie. Thank you. And just so you know, we're not in a give and take kind of a routine at public comment, but what I will tell you is you've been heard. Yeah. Our staff has been heard. We'll follow up with them. Perfect. Thank

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Carla Steel and I live at 168 Armory Road. Um I am here in addition to one say thank you for giving attention to the Armory Road um and creating a project for us because that is something that will add value to our homes and safety for our kids and all the pedestrians in the area who are trying to enjoy um that particular artery of our town. Um I am in agreement with the HOA president for Willowbrook, Andy, um in that there are concerns from our um homeowners in terms of the pedestrian pathway and the bridge um assistance with maintenance as creating that raised tabletop that is supposed to slow traffic in addition to connecting the east side to the west side um and bringing you through to fourth street will increase if that is truly um going to be a main artery coming from like Armory Park etc. Um I am I'm in agreement that the storm water easement which the engineers from Morrison and Maryland have been really um cooperative and working really hard to try to make something happen for us that we would like to all reach an agreement there. Um what I am not in agreement with is including the entire parkland um as an option for the city to maintain. Um I am I do not wish to offer that to the city. The only area that we would like assistance in terms of maintenance is where you are directing traffic which is the pathway and the

bridge and that is it. Thank you so much.

Good evening, council. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. Name and address for the record. I'm sorry, what? Name and address for the record.

My name is Karen Gainor. I live at 172 Armory Road and I am here with numerous other people from Armory. First of all, um to just reiterate, we're so excited about the project. Um there's no, you know, there's no pathways, there's no lights, there's no um a lot of things that we could use on that road. Um secondly, I'm also in agreement with Andy that um we've been challenged by the easement of the the drain water that is right next to my home and I've written numerous letters to the council and to the city regarding the amount of water that's going to come down into Cow Creek behind our home. Our homes are um mine and my neighbors are built on a clay hillside. Since we've moved in, and we moved in in 2007, uh that hillside has slid. We've uh just recently spent about $80,000 putting in a retaining wall. Um, and I am very concerned that the creek bed and adding additional flow at that juncture could cause erosion and undermine that clay mound that our homes are on. And both of our homes, my neighbor next to us has even a bigger retaining wall than the retaining wall we have there. And if it's undercut, that clay will continue and our not probably the foundation, but the rest of the home will continue it slide into the creek. So, we're trying to work with the engineering team and they've been really great, but that is a a huge concern ongoing for our property. Um, the bridge, we'd love to see you guys come in and say, "Yeah, we'll we'll pay for all of it." But, you know, if you could help us out a little bit and maybe we can get the homeowners to come in. Um, we were just working on a bid um with uh we we've known for 10 years it needs to be replaced. We've been talking about it that long, but we have no reserves. So, there's no money for that bridge and that bridge. You think your bridge is bad, you I don't know if you

have any of you seen our bridge, but it's scary every time you walk across it. Um, so if you could split it with us, um, just help us with the financing, whatever, that would be super because we'd love to see all the kids come across to the new stadium and then go out to the skate park and bring their dogs and come through that community. That community is beautiful. Uh the third thing is um I'm also in agreement with Carla and not in agreement with Andy in that we as homeowners value that property and um are going to work to increase our HOA fees so that we can maintain it in the manner that it should be maintained as part of our property um and um not burden the city with additional city parks. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Jamie Belt. I'm at 170 Armory. You're seeing a theme here. We're the Armory people. Um I submitted a public comment and I'm sure you had plenty of time to read it on top of your 700page packet. Um but I will give you the salient points of it. Agree with our neighbors so far in saying thank you so much for designing this Armory project. We're very excited to have a sidewalk and a way for our kids to get to town safely, to get to the dog park and all those other places. So, we think this is going to be a net positive. We've been super grateful for all the work that the city's been willing to do with us to help us get engaged in the projects, especially as people who are going to be directly affected. We are the neighbors of the gainers and so we are going to have our our property gets bisected by the storm water drainage that is going to be put in to drain all of Armory and the engineers have been super helpful in helping us to design that. So I think we're on the right track with that and everything is headed in the right direction. I know there's still concerns about erosion and we still have just concerns about the safety of the feature that's being proposed and the design specifics of it. So, I think we're on the right track, but just for the record want to say that we would like to get that all resolved before the design is signed off on and before the easement is signed so that we can make sure that things proceed as they've been planned. Um, so that's kind of the thing about storm water. I have a really simple question or at least request and maybe this is something that gets followed up in the construction meeting that I think is happening tomorrow. I know you guys are really good about your night sky lighting and so hopefully this project will be just like the rest of them. But I'm just curious if you guys know when you have street lighting like that, how long does it stay on? Is it on all through the night or does it turn off a couple hours after sunset? Does anybody know?

It's my frustration. I think they're on until sun sunrise. And so, can a neighborhood make a request that they get turned off a couple hours after sunset so that we have our natural darkness? I mean, we have a pretty good wildlife corridor through there with Cow Creek, and it would be really nice to retain that, especially because we're not on the main corridor, so there's not a whole lot of reason for people to need to travel on Armory past 10 p.m., for example. We hear you. Somebody somebody up here might make that request. Okay. Okay. That's the best I could do for you.

Okay. Um we can work with you too. I mean I do a lot of work with natural darkness um with the park service and have a lot of resources if it would be helpful to share them. Um I would also like to share the opinions about the bridges. We appreciate and understand that this is a great way for people to get into town and those bridges cut off a lot of the distance versus going around second. So this project will definitely increase the flow of traffic by facilitating more people to come through the the Willowbrook HOA neighborhood. And so we would love the city's support with those bridges both in terms of construction and maintenance. It seems really fair with the increased traffic flow that is going to be resulting from this project that it's a shared responsibility. Um, I also disagree that there's any reason, and I don't even think there's a legality to granting the HOA land to the city. Um, but we would just like to state for the record that that's not what we would like to see as owners of this land who purchased the land, knowing that the HOA common area was ours to hold in common. And I think that's it.

Great. Thank you so much. Hi, my name is Casey Morton and I'm at 160 Armory Road. Um, so we are right on the walking path. Um, and agree with our fellow neighbors of Armory that um, assistance from the city for maintaining the path and the bridges would be appreciated. um but not in favor of um giving any land from that common HOA area over um as a part of the project. And I like your idea about the dark aspect because that is one of the like really nice parts about being so close to town but still having that darkness like looking out your front door and seeing the northern lights like that would not be a case anymore. So those are my two cents.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh good evening, council members. My name is Eric Sautell. Uh 170 Armory Road. Um I am in complete agreement with my neighbors um and my partner Jamie with all things she said. Uh it's an exciting project. We really appreciate the city's work on it. Um our our conversations with Craig and the engineers at Morrison and Morelli have been super helpful in working through the issues that we had with the storm water um storm water outflow structure. We're still working on it and I agree with what my partner Jamie said. Uh we would like to see the final design before we actually vote on that easement. Um but uh yeah, basically echoing what everybody said, um there's going to be a lot more water moving through our property with this project and we do have erosion concerns with Cal Creek. Um and I think they're pretty valid. Um and you know, I I don't know somewhere down the line if if there's some kind of need for increased stabilization of the stream bank if we can work together on that because um there may be issues with that. Um, and also with the increased traffic, again, it's a really net positive for our community to have sidewalks and also to have uh kids and all people to be able to move through our commons area. We're totally in support of that. Um, but would absolutely like help with the bridge and the paths with that with this project. Um, we think that that's a pretty valid question and concern. Um, and I'm with my neighbors also not in favor of of handing over the entire parkland. Just really needing help with uh with the mobility aspect of it. Really appreciate you guys. Thank you very much.

Thanks, sir.

Any additional public comment this evening? Z not on Armory Road, but power to the people of Armory Road. Happy 420, everybody. Maybe a proclamation next year. All right. So, I have a uh oh, 4182nd Street for your record. Um I have a brief response to uh well one absent counselor but to some counselor comments um responding to my comment comments. So council our country has gooststepped to the far right and the adage made famous by Tip O'Neal all politics is local is no longer true. Cultists rule the county commission and until November 2025 dominated the Callispel City Council. When I moved to Whitefish in the early 2000s, Montana was a purple state. My Republican friends and I often disagreed over policy and I appreciated and respected the diverse opinions. 10 years ago, the political landscape was forever changed. The racists, the anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice Republicans

were emboldened and assisted by extremist right-wing media talk show hosts such as Montana Talks Aryan Flint, supported and promoted local candidates, including Whitefish City Council member Jeppe Kalabiano. Unlike Dr. Jesus Trump. I do not believe there are good people on both sides as I have lost too many beautiful students to suicide as a result of the hateful policies condoned by Jeppe and his ilk. While some of you might choose to join hands and sing kumbaya, I will continue to be the voice for the voiceless. Thank you.

Thank you, Jean. Anybody else this evening? Okay, Richard,

Mr. Deputy Mayor, counselors, Richard, 104th Street, Whitefish. Um, I need some advice here. I got busy on the pallet on the packet late. Um, and are you going is the ordinance on ebikes going to be in public comment now or later? and the discussion of the 9340 U Whitefish Marine Housing Project. When are those coming up? I think those are public hearings. Those are both public hearing. Yeah. 93 and 40 is not a public hearing. So your comment for that would be now. Yeah. On which one? On the developers agreement for Highway 93 and Okay.

is now. Comments. Um, Whitefish Marine Housing Project, 18 acres, 300 residential apartments, and 38 and I don't know what a KSF is, but maybe it's 1,000 square feet. I don't know. Um, I I I think Richard, we we've confused some things. No, this item is actually on the consent agenda. The item that he's talking about is on the consent agenda.

This is on the consent agenda. just for your consideration if you want to either pull it from the consent agenda or make some kinds of uh changes. But um and I realize I'm a little uh late to the dance on this one, but uh what you end up with um in this project is uh when you add it to the Alpine 9340, uh you end up with 7,574 uh daily trips. uh for that highway 9340 intersection. The current level of service is a C. Uh it's unclear to me as to what time of day that um queuing analysis for travel at that intersection was done and clearly there was no data for 2025. Um and the traffic impacts are pretty clear uh in the uh engineering report or the traffic report that the uh level of service will drop to D under current configuration but that the state is going to eventually uh change that configuration. yet uh if they go ahead if you give them permission to begin this project uh without that improvement already in place. My fear is that um the given the speed with which the state changes its travel and construction projects um who says no to the builders and the developers um when they've gone ahead and gotten started and there's a provision in there that says uh they will have to stop until at some point that point is not clear uh in in the

project uh if the highway improvements are not made. And so who's going to um decide that? And how do you It just seems so nebulous. It's pretty hard to tell a developer, oh, stop construction even though you have all of your equipment, all of your uh supplies and building materials and you have to stop and wait for three years for the state to finish building the highway or rebuilding that part of the highway. Um and I think that there was and not think there was no discussion um on the impacts of uh that development and that volume of traffic on emergency egress and I'll be back to talk about ebikes.

Thank you. Any other public comment this evening Michelle? Anyone online? Kate McMahon, if you would like to um unmute your mic and state your name and address, please.

Hi, my name is Chase Kate McMahon and I live at 151 Wedgewood Lane. I submitted comments today on the uh land use plan. My concern were the changes that were made after the public hearing was closed. Um um there was I I think some of the concern was from the council uh was the potential of a suit that the grow land use plan would be unconstitutional. I'm sorry, I'm getting some echo here on my end. Um, I wanted to I submitted um in my comments that the Montana Supreme Court report has already determined that a nonregulatory document such as a growth policy or a land use plan is uncapable of being unconstitutional. So, I would like to ask the council to um restore the language that is there um so it can be considered later when you're doing the zoning ordinance and you have more specifics about the provisions. Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

I think we're good. Oh, good. Uh, with that I'll close the public hearing. Are there any communications from volunteer boards in the audience?

Hello Grant Hughes, uh, 210 Granite Drive, Whitefish appointee on the Flathead County Board of Health. Um, just coming to give you guys a little, uh, review of what's been happening over the last two years. U we have eight different major divisions that we oversee. I'm just going to give you a brief overview of a few of those and not all of them because it's time. Um start with the animal control. Recently they had turf installed which makes cleanup and the enjoyment of the animals much greater. Um the board requested and the commissioners approved additional staff at animal control. I think they added one and a half FTE in the last two years. So, they're a little better staffed. Uh, last year there was a big case out of Cororum where they impounded 27 dogs and then the dogs were not released. So, they had to be held as evidence for about four months. So, that overwhelmed staff a little bit. Um, a lot of the other county employees started volunteering, including Janelle Growl, who eventually transitioned into the director shortly after that as well when Austin Hicks retired. Um, so there's also been a change of the veterinary staff there and they're kind of adapting with that. There's a lot of dogs and a lot of cats and some puppies and some some that are still needing wean. So if anybody is looking for an animal, go down there. They have lots. Um, one of I think the most exciting things that's happened in the last year is our behavioral health mobile response team that was brought underneath the county. Um it's a crisis intervention team that was integrated to the health department and overseen by supervisor James Pike. They average 57 hours a month of patient interventions. These are people calling in feeling suicidal or you know with drug problems and they are going and helping them out. Um average of 13 133 client interactions per month over the

past 12 months. Um the majority are suicide interventions and so these are people that maybe have called 911 And then they're getting social help instead of police help. Um there's an average of 19 ER diversions and four jail diversions per month. So those are people they're keeping out of the ER and keeping out of jail and really helping. Um it's unmeasurable their impact on law enforcement, but you know, the ability for them to show up at the scene, see that it's safe, see that someone's there to help, then go back to providing the services of our sheriff's police departments been huge for them. Um, some of the visions I'm not going to talk about, communicable disease, population health, family planning, and community health. They all do great things. Um, I'll save that for a future meeting perhaps. Environmental health. Um, I was almost I was going to present last fall and never found the time or last summer, but there was, I think, six to eight white fish restaurants that had sees for their restaurant reviews. Um, this year, everybody's doing great. So, we just had our meeting last week. All the White Fish restaurants had A's or A+es. So, we have definitely improved that. Um, Airbnbs in the hotel have all been passing inspecting. And then septic regulations. I did not anticipate how dominant septic systems would be when I volunteered on this board. Um, at some point prior to joining the board, there was a lawsuit, something with the DEEQ where the county had been approving variances for groundwater clearance and allowing septic systems to be installed where there was less than 48 inches of groundwater clearance and the general opinion became that the county should not do that anymore. So, if there was not 48 inches of clearance to high groundwater, the septic system could not

be approved. So this impacted existing septic systems. They could be changed to the same, but they could they could be improved, but they could not go up in size. So for example, one of the first ones we saw was a house on the lake here where it was a little one-bedroom cabin, and they wanted to put in a four-bedroom house, but their septic system was decrepit, but it was a one-bedroom, and because of groundwater failing, they couldn't do anything but put it in a replacement onebedroom. Um, somebody came up with the idea of utilizing what's called an Eco John incinerator system, which is a whole home incinerator system. So, instead of just an incinerator toilet, it's burning everything. There's an option to have part of it go to one tank and be pumped, part of it not, but it all goes to a separate building that has an incinerator that runs typically on propane because these are being designed for properties out in the county. Um, and everything gets burned off. So, our first house that we saw in that was a property on Ashley Lake that was probably improperly subdivided, too small. Her drain field was on the neighbor's property without an easement. And then he built a garage on top of it, condemning their property after they bought it. And a lot of it was just bad due diligence on the homeowner's part. But, you know, a 30-year-old with a baby on hand like doesn't really think about that kind of stuff. Um, so they didn't have an option on this property. So we approved the first incinerator for their property. Um, we've had a few others that got approved. I think there's somewhere around six to eight that are currently been approved. I'm not sure how many have actually been installed in the county. Um, I expressed concern at our first meetings about not wanting this to allow construction on any wetland. You know, does not open up every possible piece of property to build on. um Idaho allows them. They require no they

require low water fixtures or low volume fixtures and no washing machines. So I suggested that if we add that that point we should consider that as well. Um, concurrently, DEQ circular 4, which is the state septic regulations for homes essentially, um, where new regulations were published in December 2023. And suddenly there was a big diversion between the county regulations and state regulations. And so a subcommittee that I was not on was formed on the board of health to basically do work with the environmental health to rewrite our septic regulations and construction standards. Um those went through about 12 months of regular meetings and rewrites and changes to try to align everything with that DEEQ circular 4. Um, there was a few public comment periods and I think it was our second com public comment period. There was suddenly a big interest in the fact that gravityfed systems were now back on the table. In 2004, the county health department changed the regulations and required pressure dosed for all septic systems. So instead of just allowing gravity, it had to be electric powered and pressure dosed. The state does not require that. And since we were aligning with the state, we removed that requirement. Um, I think probably threearters of us on the board, this was somewhat of a surprise. We didn't even think that anyone cared that much, much less the amount of outcry that we had. We had 70 pages, which is small compared to your hundreds, but of public comments. Um, and in that meeting, I think three of the eight board members voted no to pass it on because we wanted to discuss and look at the possibility of adding gravityfed systems further. Um,

so I went home and reviewed DEEQ Circular 4 and said, "What does it actually say? Does it allow gravityfed septic systems to be used everywhere? And are they inferior to pressure dose systems?" Um, DEEQ Circular 4 allows it in certain cases system types and if it's a sand light absorption trench, elevated sand mount, subsurface drip system or absorption bed, it's required to be pressure dosed. If the system size is more than 500 linear feet or 1,000 square feet, it's required to be pressure dosed. So essentially, that's going to mean most three-bedroom homes and smaller might be able to use a gravityfed system. soil quality. It's systems installed in gravel or texture soils with percolation rates faster than three MPIs must be pressure dosed. So if it's a grally soil, it's not going to be allowed. If it's 3 to six MPIs percolation rate, it's required to have an additional 2 feet of separation to a limited layer. So you have to have six feet of ground instead of only four feet. Um so the state regulates based on the soil, not based on the type. So the county regulations were saying you had to be pressure dosed all the time. The state says if you have this, you know, basically two or three of the conditions met in your soil quality, we will allow a gravity fed system and if the size of the system is not too large or of this certain type. Um I also reviewed all of the scientific literature went on scholar.google.com google.com and searched for any, you know, peer-reviewed articles published in the last 20 years regarding pressure dose versus gravity fed. And the majority of them were equivalent and any were that were not equivalent were not it was not within the gravity fed system was still performing well within regulations.

Um Rod Cun, who is the Callispell appointee on the county board of health, submitted a public comment last week for our meeting um where he used AI to review the public the scientific literature and give a summary of it as well as you know six actual scientific uh references, but there was a great summary at the end of it that said there's no peer-reviewed scientific evidence establishing that gravity-fed septic systems inherently produce greater groundwater contamination than pressure dust systems. Comparative studies show mixed or statistically insignificant differences and the weight of de weight of evidence demonstrates that soil characteristics vertical separation and loading rates not distribution method are the primary determinance of groundwater impact. Um following that the entire board with the exception of Don Barnhart who's the Columbia Falls appointee um voted to approve the regulations. They were sent to the county commissioner who approved them well as well. Um,

yeah. So, can I can I interrupt you with a question? Yeah. Because I know why you're here, which which is this issue. Um, my question is you may be right or they the literature may be right. My understanding is that there is no requirement for a certified engineers report regarding the soils. um if you're going to put in a gravityfed versus a pressure is am I missing something or does is there are is there a requirement if that you want to use gravityfed you're going to have to show up with a certified engineers report that demonstrates that the soils will support it

I believe so you have to report the perk rate so your perk rate has to be you know either greater than three and less than it's 200 and something but basically you have to have that clay soil or not clay soil the Sandy Lom I believe is essentially where it's at. But does it require a certified engineers, hydraologist, whatever report to to assure that that's the case as opposed to builder shows up and says, "Oh yeah, I tested it and looked at it and it looks fine to me. I'm not sure."

Okay. If I'm talking for myself now without the council's approval at this point, one of the concerns I would have would be that you may your research and the research may be absolutely right in terms of the size and under which I think the concern that I would have is that that if that's true, I just want to make damn sure that there is an engineer or hydraologist or qualified professional that puts their professional license on the line saying, "No, I've tested it. It's fine. We can use this." Yeah.

And that's what I think um would cause a lot of people to get a little more relaxed with this idea of of dropping the requirement for uh pressure fed. Yeah, that's and that's that's what I've picked up from what I've seen and heard. So, anything you can do to help us bring that up and or ensure that that's part of the regulations consistent with state uh regulations, that would be a great thing. And I I think that and you know, the construction quality. Yeah. You know, I think a lot of people saw gravity fed systems installed in the 70s that were done by, you know, my cousin's brother and maybe we're not, you know, it requires more finesse with your excavator,

right? It requires not driving over your drain field with the excavator after you lay all the dirt down, you know. Right. Um, and I hope that and I think that our construction quality is improved over time. Um, but that's another thing I would like to see some, you know, post installation site inspections for looking at things like that. Sure. Go right ahead. Um, I didn't you just say that the county commissioners already accepted this change? They have. Okay. So you can't retroactively ask for an engineer's analysis unless you amend what you've done. Is that That's correct. So you could amen. Well, we can we can amend things. Yeah. So okay.

So there's a process. It's Well, we do have septic systems in our town that you know and around the lake and stuff. So it is a concern because we don't want the groundwater to be um contaminated. But I really appreciate all your research on this. so that you're you've come before us and assured us that we're not um at risk. You know, I think pretty much

thank you. Um and I think that you know, groundwater is a big concern and protecting it is very important. Um I don't think preventing new installation or you know additional regulations beyond what the state requires are the necessarily the most important parts to protecting our gun router. You know it's identifying those failed systems is more important. Um, you know, I've made the comment a couple times in our meetings about, you know, there are AI methods to use drones to fly over neighborhoods and there was a PhD project developed out of the University of North Carolina in Raleigh where he was using imagery to identify failed systems and he had like 90% accuracy. And I mean that algorithm is out there. He published this paper. We could develop it if there was a nonprofit interested in doing so. the county doesn't have the money to do so or the time, I don't think. But um and you know, things like regulating requiring septic inspections before title transfers would go a long way to identifying failed systems. Um and currently there's nothing like that. So

that legislation was voted down by our legislature several times. Yeah,

we can ask again, but I'd like Thank you. Thank you. Um, Steve, I you know, I I'm admittedly a novice on this whole thing. Uh, first of all, though, I can imagine several drones getting shot out of the sky if uh you undertake a project like that in the county. Um uh but the uh the question I have is what you know I'd like I'd like to get some information back on this so that if we if if we need to take further action to um to guarantee that one the enforcement is in place um not only for new new systems but when people have to come in and upgrade or update their systems. Uh, and then if the and I'd also like to know if the state require what the state requires in terms of um because I just don't know uh what they require in terms of inspections before uh what kind of testing they require. Does it does it require certified any sort of certified engineering um certificate that says this is the actual perk rate versus somebody going in and saying, "Yeah, it looks like you got about that much." Um, you know, those are the we need to have I think we need to have that data before we can before we decide that this is something we need to be to get up in arms about uh as well. I mean it from the optics of it, it doesn't look great because it feels like we're going backwards. We have we have engineered systems that are better in general than gravityfed and the state for for whatever it decided or it never decided that we should have pressure systems. Um, and we had something in place that said, "Yeah, these pressure systems need to happen because of water quality." It the optics of it look like we're going backwards. I hope you can appreciate that.

Um, no matter what the science says, but you know, the science it seems like the science is kind of split on the issue or or the science is kind of saying, you know, it really doesn't matter based on a certain number of factors, but we need to have a report for every single system that shows that yes, these are actually the factors. just like we have a traffic report whenever we do a development. So, uh I that's the kind of information I would like to get back and I don't know if you can spearhead that and bring it back to us or just compile it and send it to us so that we can decide whether this is something we should be more up in arms about because honestly, you know, whatever the rule is, it all comes down to enforcement. And unfortunately, our colleagues at the at the county, at least in the planning side of things, do not do a very good job with their enforcement of the rules that they have in place. So, that's my biggest concern.

Yeah. And I will I will look into that because I have that question, too. I I assume that, you know, the side inspection goes out and the county staff tested or it requires a PE to sign off, but I don't know that for that's something I would assume from that would be what I would think would be required. But any other questions for you, Grant? Thank you.

Thanks a bunch, Grant. And uh Grant, you're welcome back here anytime you got an issue you want us to know about, please do come. Thank you. Any other volunteer boards in the audience? Not seeing any. Uh any volunteer volunteer board reports from the council? Rebecca?

Yep. Um, Arbor Day is this Friday at 9:00 am. Um, that would be April 24th at the Armory Park Kitty um, playground. So, everybody is welcome. We do that once a year where we plant trees in one of our many parks. Um and um and then also the climate action committee is meeting the third Monday of the month at 3:30 to 5 and they met recently. Um we're going through um a long list of projects to see where which have been completed and what haven't been. And um we hope by midsummer we'll know whether or not we met our goals of Craig um I'm sorry but is it 26% reduction in greenhouse gases is that or I wasn't sure 26% reduction by 2025 is what the goal was.

Yeah that's that's the number. Okay. And then there's some equation that we're working on, Tammy is working on to see if we actually met that goal. And um so that will be exciting. And then they're also moving forward with a parking study um and EV charging. Craig has decided to put um EV chargers for Depot Park in his budget this year. Correct. And you want to comment on that?

We've talked about it. Um, so EV chargers have been in the budget for the last couple of years, but uh it's required uh some grant funding which we haven't been successful in getting. So, um I think as we move forward with the budget, we'll continue to talk about EV charging.

Okay. So, I'm speaking too soon. Um, and then the last thing is we have on the list is to to hire a sustainability coordinator, but we have a a brand new engineer. And um, so that we're going to have an in-house position for one or two years to see if we can use existing talents instead of hiring out. So that's it for climate action for now.

Thanks, Rebecca. Um any other board reports? Not seeing any. We'll move on to um our consent agenda. And with that, I would uh entertain a motion. And that would include if anybody wants to pull anything from the consent agenda for further discussion. I'd like to pull item C off the consent agenda, please. And is there a motion to approve subject to that the remainder of the items? Motion to approve without C. Is there a second? Second.

Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion with that? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign that absent item C. Um the consent agenda has been a approved. Um, now what is our discussion point on? Um, would you like to take this up now or at the end of our public hearings? What's the pleasure of councel? Now? No. No. Okay. Anybody? Okay, let's go.

Uh, well, I I have a question to start. Um I kind of concerned that this this large of a project kind of slid through on the consent agenda as a annex. Steve, can I just speak to that? This is the notice of intent to annex. So the actual public hearing on this is scheduled for June 1st. Um if you're reading the resolution, so this is required to initially advertise that we're going to have a public hearing on this and so it'll be a much more thorough discussion. Okay. On this June 1st, this is just the preliminary notice of intent which goes on the consent agenda. So, this will go to a full public hearing for this annexation actually happens.

Yep. And the whether you guys choose to annex or not and and accept the developer agreement as proposed. Okay. Thank you. My apologies for my misunderstanding about that. That said, uh any further discussion on that item at this time? Mr. Mr. Deputy Mayor, I would make a motion, please. Uh that we adopt what will be our resolution number 26-06, which is a resolution of intent to annex. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Yes, just a comment. We love Steve so much that we s and voted to listen to you. So smile.

Thank all those in favor. All those opposed like sign and the matter passes unanimously. Um, now on to our um public hearings. The first of which is not a public hearing. The public hearing is closed on this matter and we're turning it back. It's u we carried this matter over in the hopes that the mayor might be available for the passage of it. Um but given his illness and and uh Ben's I've talked with both. Um we're going to move on this matter tonight. Um, I have a couple of items that I'd like to bring up for discussion on the growth policy based on my review of the final one and the mayor's view of the final one that we can at least discuss. Um, the first uh and if

uh Mr. Depotion first and then that won't drag us on forever and yeah an item please. I would make a motion that we adopt resolution number 26-07. It's a resolution to adopt the 2045 vision Whitefish Community Plan.

Motion made in second. And for purposes of discussion at this point, I guess I would like to raise uh maybe a couple of amendments or friendly amen or amendments to the um to the growth policy as it's currently written. Um I would like us to look at for everybody's purposes. This is the issue is relates to our references to duplexes, triplexes and forplexes and the fact that those things are normally set up as individual ownerships of the entire um sets of units. In other words, the duplexes is is owned by one person, the triplexes and the forplex. What I think the purpose of allowing these kinds of increases is to encourage separate ownership at a much less cost than buying an entire duplex or triplex and then renting out the And so what I would like or ask or if there's any moment that we also add a reference to that these items these multi-units on one lot be uh set up or allowed to be under separate ownership, whether that be through condoization or uh separating the one lot into four individual property owners for the forplex that's on or allowed on that lot. And my my thought is is that what we really want in the whole purpose of allowing this kind of concentration is to allow more opportunities for individuals ownership of these smaller units. and we can't require it, but I think it would be important for us to state consistent with all the public

hearing that we had um and all the public interest in allowing for more ownership opportunities within our uh within the city that I'd like to add a reference to u that we should also encourage on those multi-unit um properties um and encourage encourage separate ownership of each of those units either through the use of um separate meters, separate lots or condo maps um or a separate property or uh party walls if they want to call them it to allow for and to um encourage individual ownership of different units and that they could be sold individually as opposed to having to be sold as a whole. Okay. Sure.

Um, so like for instance, what Alan put up here is objective A, a broad mix of housing types should be allowed and encouraged. Um, and then you want to add like a line that says home ownership is desirable or I Dave, isn't that already a available? Like can't people already develop that way? Do we need to add anything to it? because I thought it was already

condos are exempt from our subdivision regulations. So, anybody has to just, you know, hire an attorney and put together, you know, an HOA for the condo and they can file that and sell the individual lots on any duplex or triplex. It's a little more cumbersome than a townhouse, which we, you know, we allow those, but you have to have a lot that's big enough to be able to to do a town home on it. So, we're they're regulated by the size of the or area of the lot. Um but you know there all those are already allowed in all of our zoning districts currently. So correct. So do you think we need to add language to clarify that um home ownership is desirable?

I mean if the intent of the council is to encourage home ownership I mean you guys could add that in there but I mean again it's something that's already available depending on the zoning district and the size of your lot. So, should we add the intent of this or do you want to change anything, Frank?

I I I do and as I uh explained to Allen when I was uh having this discussion with myself earlier, I'm a lawyer. I understand perfectly well that duplexes, triplexes, and forplexes can be uh in fact under separate ownership on each of the units. that's not exactly what um the community knows, understands, or appreciates. And one of the um reasons that we've gone to allowing these kinds of increased densities is that we want the opportunity for more individual ownership of these less theoretically less expensive units. And so that's my motivation here. Um can it happen otherwise? Yeah, I think it can. Um, but do I think it's a again consistent with what we are about doing here, which is creating more ownership opportunities within our community under less expensive or more reasonable costs. This should be some this is the way that we all think, well, yeah, if we got a duplex, yeah, people should be able to to split the cost of the whole thing and and you get two for the price of one kind of a routine. So all I'm suggesting is that we we can't require it, but I would uh my intreaty is that if we put it in here in this in this objective, I think it'll give us an opportunity or at least a basis upon which to say, "Yeah, we heard you. Yes, we encourage this." Um and maybe a developer or somebody else that's looking at this thing says, "Oh, this might be a better way to act." So that's

my that's my only theory on it. Frank, if you were to make a motion, how would the wording be? I'm open to suggest suggestion. What I would add is we in we encourage in m in uh dup in duplexes, triplexes, town homes, quads uh individual, multif family.

Okay, that's fine. We encourage separate meters for each unit, separate lot or a condo map. um and separate party walls to allow for and encourage individual ownership of the se of each unit within um within those multi-units or the complex. Who is we? Could you repeat that one more time, Mr. Sweeney? Just just happy. Yes, in a words meeting. Who is we? Good point.

Yeah, we don't use the first person in this. Encourage. Yeah, there you go.

Honestly, I think it's redundant. Personally, I think we just uh there is no uh bite in my mind to that sentence. How does the city encourage uh unless that reflects in our planning sessions? So when we do title 11, we have to apply uh tools that incentivize um and make it so that whoever develops is encouraged to do that. Uh and I think the objectives are already pretty clear. I never doubted that a triplex uh could be own could be three units owned by three different entities. I I do not know why we need to further uh make verbosity in that objective. I don't care either ways. So I'll support it if it if it makes you feel better. And but I guess my grants do

I I think the the point here is that this is a vision document and our vision is to is to encourage ownership and we don't have a statement that encourages individual ownership of these types of units anywhere else. And I think I I I agree that this is you know it's not regulatory it's visionoriented right this is our policy we want to encourage these things to happen. We used the word encourage in the sentence before as well. So um encouraging developers to do things in a vision document is what we can do. Regulating them and requiring them to do it is not something we can do. And you know we won't do that when we get to the well we wouldn't be able to do that if we don't have a statement like this if we decided to try to go in the regulatory route later on.

And just be because it's a vision document to talk about meters and party walls. It looks like we're going so down into the weeds. I mean, maybe in 20 years meters are done remotely with no physical meter for all we know.

I agree with you there. I think we should we can change it to city encourages um individual ownership of these needed housing units if that makes any sense. And then that that leaves it open to however it has to happen. It has to happen that way. I would say of these needed housing units because we reference it in the first sentence. Duplexes, triplexes, town homes, cottage courts, all those things, right? I can live with that. We could even add the word much in there if we wanted to.

Much needed. So, so if a mother and a daughter buy two units under the name of the mother, are we going to have some ordinance that discourages that because it's one owner? I mean, what how how do you discriminate that? We're not going to we're not going to we're not going to regulate this, but it's part of our vision.

What I just let me put it this way. What my intent here is is that people should be encouraged when they develop these multi-unit projects that they should develop them in such a way that they would be individually um transferable to separate ownership. They're not required to and nobody's saying you have to, but I think the what happens a lot of times in these multi-units is you end up with um one meter, you end up with consolidated uh interests or no ability to subdivide or share interests with the underlying property. And and I we can't require that now. All I'm saying is that if we're listening to the people that we are trying to serve, the encouragement is for us to provide or at least encourage ownership opportunities at a less expensive price than buying the entire triplex or the entire quad. And so that's all I'm doing. I can't require it. I get that. And so all I'm trying to do is raise the issue. So yes, Dana,

I would like you to word smith this a little more because if I read that sentence, it says the city encourages individual ownership of these units. It sounds like one person should own all of the units. Um, which I think is is completely against it. So it depends on how you read it. So I would say that incur the city encourages home ownership opportunities for these much neededed units. Keep it very broad and just say home ownership. Um because that could be a unit, it could be a town home, it could be a full single family home, but just how it was written was just a little off for me. Right. Yeah.

I think I think an important piece of missing after is missing after you just said that. And the idea is that we want what we want to encourage is developers when these new developments come online that they are set up for the ease of transfer of ownership to individuals. And I think that part is missing. So I have some potentially different language that could be the new the new letter B here. New letter B. Yes. Or so

new development or it could be A1. New development of this type should be encouraged to uh new new development of this type should be encouraged to ease the transfer of ownership to individual uh to individuals to separate individuals or something along those lines. Again, I'm spitballing here as I'm going through. Okay, keep going. I like I like your science. I think that's what I think it actually could be part of A. In other words, Steve, can I just add a suggestion? Maybe this this B itself would be the city encourages the development of of, you know, long-term home ownership units and new projects should be and then whatever your sentence was, it

ease. So it's the whole the whole B would be about home ownership units being the thing that should be prioritized individual ownership units. So the idea is home ownership units should be prioritized and home ownership units should be prioritized and development should be designed to be um I don't know how you worded that but to be able to be quickly transferred or with um be able to divide it you know into multiple units

that was the intent Steve uh yeah I Yes, the intent is making it easier to transfer the ownership to individuals that live there. I don't know how to word smith that. This is what Ben doesn't want to do on the dis and I agree with him in that respect because we can't come up with the right language in five minutes that's going to last for 40 years. So, or 20 years, but I I understand the intent and I if there were a quick and easy way to do it, I would love to to figure that out. But I don't know how to make I can't make the word salad right now myself.

All right, I'll give it a shot one more time. With that in mind, I I Steve I that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Um let me see multi-unit projects. Let's add this is the objective A. The city encourages multi-unit projects to be structured in such a way as to promote the individual ownership of the separate units in the near term or long term. Because what I'm somebody may want to build one and own all three units and rent out two. Okay, fine. But at some point they may want to transfer one of them or sell one of them. Or they may want to sell all three units and there are three people that want to buy separate interests. So I I so I'm not restricting it. All I'm saying is that at some point these if we're going to allow these multi-units within our uh within our community and we're trying to encourage the opportunity for individual ownership, this at least ought to be referenced here. So that's my goal. So um that's my first friendly amendment. Um what should we I would move that we make that change

um as a friendly amendment to the to approving the growth policy. I'll second it. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. Now hopefully my pardon. Okay. All right. Jeppi did vote for it. Correct. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Um, now I'd like to like to uh look at a couple of Can I ask who I'm sorry, we were dealing with online people. Can you remind me who seconded? Okay, thank you.

Steve did. I made the motion. Steve seconded. Um now um we have a couple of place types in in our um land use. What we intend is and we've called them mixed use and we've called them neighborhood centers and we've called you know and there's whole chunks I'm talking about locations particularly locations B and C um on our uh land use map. what I understand and again I've listened to all of the community and I and John and I have talked about this. If what we want is again suburban ownership opportunity type neighborhoods and we want an opportunity for uh a walkable area. We don't necessarily want to mix random retail deep within and off of various of our main thoroughfairs. I'm thinking 93 in particular on for both locations B and C. B is set up so that one section of it of the whole thing which is called mixed use only one part of it is actually zoned for commercial in the B2. My suggestion is that what we say in effect is to change on page 427. I got a simple fix for this. Um, see if I can get back

427 of the packet. Of the packet. Um, we have second paragraph. Overall, participants have expressed a preference for subcap compact suburban type place type for location A, a mixed neighborhood place type for location B, and a slightly more intensive neighborhood center for location C. It is recommended, we say here, it is recommended that any mixed use or commercial uses proposed within a mixeduse neighborhood place such as locations, and I would add, can you hold on? I can't even find the page yet. Sure.

So, I can't even follow along. 427. Yeah. Allan. Yes. Yep. Page 189 of the plan. Um, and but it's Oh, sorry. It was somewhere 189 190 um of the plan. 427 of the packet. Okay. What paragraph are you on, Frank?

I think he's on the second paragraph. overall participants. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, what I'm if you go down to the end of the third line, we say the sentence starts, it is recommended that any mixed use or commercial uses proposed within a mixeduse neighborhood place type such as and I'll say such as location B or C. Locations B or C. So location would go to a plural. It would say locations such as B and C be located along Highway 93 or fronted towards 93 for f or future Baker Avenue to ensure improved market. And so what I'm doing is to the extent we want to talk about mixed use on certain parcels, what we're doing is we're focusing that where we know it will be it is not already allowed. It will be consistent with walkability for the neighborhoods that will be hopefully formed behind them and allow for lack of a better description allow for um them to have some level of success. But what I really don't want is I don't think any of us want based on our last discussion that we want um a random restaurant or coffee shop or anything else located up in a neighborhood where what we really want is home ownership and we want homes.

Sure. So what you're talking about is called the neighborhood. No, is it neighborhood quarter? What's the place type? Is it the quarter? There are there are two or three place types that are affected by this. Well, I'm asking staff, not you. Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

Sorry. because they because this came up last time I thought with Thomas but um so what we would be doing is we'd be getting rid of the mixed neighborhood place type and then we would be replacing it with a quarter place type in the front and something else in the back. for this this particular question. I think all Frank is suggesting is to clarify in the mixed neighborhood that the commercial be oriented along 93 in Baker. That's it. We We're fine with that. It just um I think we probably should have said B or C. Right now it just says B or sorry, right now it just says C and it I think it should have said B or C. But I thought the neighborhood center place type included commercial within it and then the corridor type place type was only allowing retailer commercial along the main arterials.

If it's okay I know that CCB is on the line because they wrote a lot of this and were highly involved in this. I may defer it to them to make sure that it's represented correctly. So I agree with Frank that that would be my preference. Long range is to have more residential away from the arterials and commercial at along the arterials, but I thought that mixed neighborhood was the opposite of that. Again, I can I defer to Thomas.

Alvin, I'm here. Can you hear me? We can hear you, Thomas.

Okay. So, the mixed neighborhood place type is a place type that is primarily mixed residential types, housing types, but also does allow for small neighborhood commercial within it. So it can be integrated within um a neighborhood center place type is also a mixed place type but has a almost a bit of a larger neighborhood center or billet center associated with it. So it does also have a mixeduse component. Does that answer your question?

Um yeah. So, if we wanted to change this to not having um retail or commercial within the residential areas and only along the avenues or the corridors, how would we fix that? If well then I think that maybe if your intent is to really maintain the commercial development along 93 in this case for locations B and C, I think the recommended language does do that. I think it essentially keeps it u much more similar to what you have right now on the corridor. I think this gets there if that is your intent. that to the extent it hasn't been made. That is my additional motion.

I'll second any just just to understand your motion better. when location B talks about being located along US 93. Correct. Location B is like a flag uh uh shape where the 93 adjacent side. It's it's very very tiny. I thought the um the spirit was to go either 93 and or Baker. It does say Baker. Still says Baker. Yeah. 93 US 93 or future Baker Avenue.

No. Yeah, I thought you restricted only to Okay, take my comment back.

Yeah, any further discussion on that potential amendment? Further thoughts? All those in favor? All those opposed, like sign. That amendment passes unanimously. Now, and I'm gonna ask Allan um and maybe CZB the last thing and it's consistent with with that amendment that we've made in particularly in placed in location B and location C which for our purposes are the area across from Don K by the U by the Baptist church and location C is essentially the old hospital site. I'm not sure how to best do this, but what we've essentially done or recommended through that that initial amendment was that we're to the extent we're want to call each of these sites mixed use in some form or fashion, we have different place types within those. And so what I'm now going to ask and where the best way for us to deal with this is rather than say for example the remainder of location B which is the go going west from 93 that's not already commercial and the area that is um east of on on No, Let's let's deal with location B first. What I would suggest or recommend again consistent with what we've heard and what we want is that why are we using a mixed neighborhood place type for the remainder of B?

Shouldn't it really be compact suburban neighborhood again? So Frank at the planning commission that was changed that look that area B half of it was changed to a compact suburban and the other half to that mixed ne mixed residential neighborhood. So that was already divided up at the planning commission on with the place type map on area B. Right. So that was in response to some of the concerns from the park null neighborhood and that was that map was changed.

Right. So what I see is that part of it is compact suburban which is on the furthest west portion but the center part of this thing or what's just off the u what I'll call the community corridor piece is mixed neighborhood. What does that mean? We're not allow we don't want commercial there. It's already going to be mixed neighborhood is a mix of residential types single family duplex triplex forplex. Thomas can speak to it and then it mentions potentially some neighborhood commercial uses but only adjacent to Highway 93 or Baker Avenue. Okay. So, I mean it's already outlined in the if you read what that place type says.

Then I withdraw I withdraw my my comment. That was my concern. I just didn't I want us to focus on what is belong what we want there consistent with having a fixed walkable neighborhood. Um now I'm going to ask the same question with respect to location C. Do we have to should we identify the what I'll call the the frontage along 93 on the old husband site going back 100 ft maybe 150 ft. Do we change that to community corridor or do we need to do that? And then then I'll ask with respect to the remainder of that property. Do we want it to remain community corridor or does it need to change or should it stay community or neighborhood center whatever that is because what I'm think again what I'm thinking I'll finish my thought and this will be my motion is that I think that the remainder of the old hospital site should not be mixed neighborhood shouldn't be uh neighborhood center Um, and it shouldn't be um and it should all be effectively um compact suburban. Now, is this something that I need to change now for us to make happen or is this something we can handle through the zoning when we get to these sections?

I mean, you know, the zoning is what it is, so we're going to have to change the zoning in the future. Right. Right. Um it looks like and I'm trying to look at the colors on the place type map, but the majority of that is neighborhood center with some mixed Yeah. neighborhood in there. Right. Right. Well, um which a mixed neighborhood is, you know, with that qualifier you just added that says that any mixed or any kind of commercial uses should be concentrated towards highway 93. I mean that gives the direction that because mixed neighborhood is mostly the residential mixed residential types, okay, single family, duplex, right? And then neighborhood center is what you know falls under I think most of that is where it's already zone WB2 which is yeah you know highway commercial right okay

I think it's already accomplished with that little change that you made earlier. Okay. So I I guess my question then my random question is maybe I live with the idea of mixed neighborhood but why would the center piece of the old hospital site be called a neighborhood center? Shouldn't it really be mixed neighborhood? Well, I think that was I mean Thomas can answer that. That was the Thomas. I mean, he should probably be the one to talk about it, but that was the concept that, you know, all of our visioning sessions had with that that area would would be the the, you know, the hub of, you know, walkable. Yeah. Um, types of uses that people living around there could utilize. But Thomas, go ahead and discuss that.

Sure. Yeah.

Sure. I'm happy to jump in and give a quick explanation, a little bit of background. So, as we were working with the community and getting public input on that particular site, there was a real desire to make sure that that site had a bit of a kind of a center feel to it. A little bit more density, a little bit more of an opportunity for housing types, etc. And so, the neighborhood center place type was created for that. I think that with the language that was added earlier, I think it probably protects you from some of your concerns with regard to commercial development. I think that it's also important to recognize that um different place types, I should say, and individual place type may have one or two or three different zoning designations under it. So, I think you're probably protected with it as is. The idea was to create a somewhat geographically defined center where things could be integrated a little bit more than they would otherwise be if it were just corridor commercial or more suburban. That was the idea behind the neighborhood center.

And Frank, it also includes the mall site, Super One Foods. All that is part of this.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, given that explanation, I think we'll just have to deal with it through through the zoning process. I think is probably a better way to do it than try to do more brain damage here. Um, with that, I have no further uh thoughts or uh for further discussion. If there's none if there's no others um discussion-wise um we're back to the original motion which is to approve the growth policy as now amended and presented. Any further discussion? I I do have a comment about um and and I will reserve this maybe for second reading uh to to take it up more um in detail, but because I understand that we need to move this forward. Uh and I think tonight is the night to do that. Um, I do still have a concern about what we changed, what we removed last week with regard to the 60-foot building heights in our downtown core area. And um there I may I may have to I may be pulling this off of the consent agenda at our or our sec on our second reading just just to let you guys know, but I'm I

resolution. It's a resolution. It's a resolution, so it doesn't get a second reading. Is that what happens? It's when it's done, it's done. Okay. Okay.

Well, I How much brain damage do we want to go through? I'll just make the motion. Um and uh on page I think it's on page 196 of the document uh itself 434. Uh last time we removed reference to um the 60oot building height. I forget exactly what the the language was in there, but I'm sure it exists in a document somewhere. And I would move that we restore numbers one and three to that section. Uh, and it would read. So there right now it currently on page 196 of the document. Um, right now it reads, "Pursuant to the new state legislation SB243, zoning regulations, municipalities meeting the requirements of subsection 76-2-304, the city may not include a requirement to provide height restriction of less than 60 ft on buildings that are located in downtown commercial, heavy commercial, or other industrial zones." And that's all that's left. That was number two or B, I forget which one it was. Um, but we removed those uh one and three or A and C and I would my motion is to restore those.

I get a second, but I'll second. Okay, Rebecca. Well, I voted not to remove him originally, so I'm in favor of keeping them myself. I I agree with Kate McMahon's comments that this is a growth policy and um it's not regulatory, it's visionary and I just I think we should keep it intact instead of being um removing things without further discussion.

And just in support of my own motion, my my comments from last meeting stand. I I don't I think that um by allowing 60oot buildings in our downtown, we are opening the door to a lot of um change that we don't want to see in this community. Um our downtown is the is the beating heart of of what Whitefish is and what it has historically been. And if we have 60-oot buildings downtown, um, which is going to be mostly, uh, be mostly new construction, that's going to take away a lot of our old, uh, historic facades. I I just it it changes the character of our town completely. And I think that um that we don't, if we're going to die on a hill, I think that's that's a hill I think we should die on in this document. It is not regulatory. Um, this is a vision statement and uh and with without having that language, it may prevent us from doing something in our zoning that protects us as well. So, that's my two cents on it. Any further discussion on that amendment?

Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. I like it. Um Oh, I got one passed. Holy cow. Any any further um any further questions, discussions, or matters that we need to cover on the growth policy? Yes, Rebecca. There was one typo, but I already gave it to Alan. I don't need to I add that in here, do I, Dana? Or no. Okay. If it's a simple typo, I think I would hope I wouldn't have to get a vote on a typo. I fixed it.

Thank you. Okay, that's pretty darn good. Yeah. Um, all right. All those in favor? All those No. For the motion to approve the growth policy. Thank you. Matter passes unanimously and on we go. All right. Thank you all. The mayor thanks you. Everybody is very happy. Um is that really over? It's really over.

All right. We'll move on to our item uh 20. Uh res I guess it's going to be resolution what? Like there'd be more fanfare on that one. I got a hug. Oh, wait. Yeah. Move on to 2608 resolution uh adopting the uh vision whitefish public engagement plan.

You need a motion. I I so move. We read it.

We've got a public hearing here. Hang on one second. I'm just getting the presentation geared up. Okay. Um I'm speechless. Okay. This is a amended public engagement plan. So, in June of 2024, the Whitefish City Council adopted a public engagement plan and the uh public engagement plan indicates how the city is going to provide continuous public participation when adopting vision wish 2045. When this plan was being prepared in early spring of 2023, the Montana land use planning act had not yet been adopted. It was still in the drafting stages, although we did know that a public engagement plan would be required. When the Malupa was subsequently adopted, the public engagement plan was required, but it was also required for regulatory updates, which we did not know at that time. The present uh engagement plan that you approved only deals with the growth policy. We have since updated the public engagement plan to include any future updates to the community plan, to the regulatory updates, and any administrative processes that are directed by Malupa. So the areas there there's a lot of red marks in there and I apologize about that but I'm just going to kind of briefly talk about the the areas of very limited changes. So some stuff the format looks pretty much the same. There's just I tell you what the significant changes were. The the red marks are extensive but the general layout and formats basically the same. There's no significant changes to the role of the decision makers. There's no significant changes to the participants or the audience. There's very few changes to the opportunities for public participation. And there's very few changes to the tools for outreach. So

that was major parts. But what there were big changes were were uh the significant changes again the document now focuses on community plan updates, regulatory updates and sight specific developments versus just the growth policy. There's a new section that was added called what are land development regulations. There's a new section added called what what is a sightspecific development. There is a table now at the bottom. The original public engagement plan had a whole table with all the steps of what will be required with the growth policy and all the different opportunities for public engagement. Now the growth the community plan is done. So there's a table now that's more general. And this table just kind of talks about the three different processes. Uh community plan updates, regulatory updates, site specific developments and what the engagement opportunities are. the the big change is really the role of staff and and that is because that's what Mlupa told us that we have to do. So this is a key point. This is important that when a local go this is what M loopa tells us. A local government shall provide continuous public participation when adopting amending or updating a land use plan or regulations. So we have that in this public engagement plan how that will work. Then the final adopted community plan including any amendments or updates comprises the basis for implementing the land use. So it says once you're done with this then your site development your regulations have to be they have to match that community plan. Then it says after the regulations are completed the scope of an opportunity for public participation and comment on site specific developments is uh reduced. um that that the public particip site specific development plans in substantial compliance it's only um to impacts that were not previously

identified or s or significantly increased impacts and again this is what M loopa tells us. So the planning administrator is to make a determin way this works is that the planning when we get a sightsp specific development right so somebody comes in to do a any kind of project the planning administrator is to make a determination first on whether the sight specific development meets the plans and the regulations and whether there would be any new or increased impacts not previously considered during creation of the plans or regulations. That's the first thing we're required to do. That's what this public engagement plan says. If the planning administration deter administrator determines that there are increased impacts then they can request additional review and there will be a 15day public comment period. And Lupus says that and this is important to mention and Lupus says if a proposed development is in substantial compliance with the zoning regulations in the map and all the reg all the impacts have been analyzed there not new impacts that it must be approved denied or approved with conditions and it is not subject to any further public review or comment. Again this is what Mlupa tells us. And then there is an appeals process that is listed. So, there's what we're calling the mate exception. And that's kind of when you got your packet last week, there's one little tweak that I had to make because it's confusing at best, and it is confusing. What it said was when the when the maid lawsuit was filed in the interim time that it was being deliberated, they added something. And what they added was that they said that prior to June or sorry prior to June 1st sorry July 1st 2027 that the planning administrators planning administrator's initial determination so when they get a site

development plan and they look at it and they say it meets the planning it meets the community plan and it meets the zoning regs and I don't see any impacts That initial determination is subject to public notification by the public. So they have to do a 15day public notification process. That process is required for a year and then that process is to go away. And again I know it's confusing. So there's a little footnote in this public engagement plan. So to summarize basically here's the way the process works because I know this is confusing and I apologize I didn't write it. uh community plan has gone through robust community engagement. That's what you just did and you adopted this plan. Now we are the the city is working on the regulations. Those are the next things you're going to see. You're going to see a kind of what we're calling a band-aid fix to get our regulations in in conformance as closely as we can. And basically that conformance, what we're talking about with the band-aid fix is going to be moving things from public to administrative review. Again, not our decision. That's the next thing that you're going to see. Then when a site development, sight specific development comes in, the planning administrator or their design is to look at it and say, does it meet the comprehensive plan? Does it meet the regulations? Yes. And then are there any impacts that were not considered at the time that the regulations and the comp plan were written? And are they any new ones? Then until next year, they're supposed to send out a notification saying, "I made that determination." Right? Then they review it and if there are no new or significant impacts, they are to make a decision and that's it. And then there's an

appeals process. Is there anything you want to add, Dave, to that? I know it's I I understand the concern. That is what we're being told to do. So, that is what the that is what the public engagement plan says. Um, with that, um, I don't I'll take any comments or questions. Any questions for Alan on a staff report? Steve,

Alan, I I see things better in images than in words. Is there any possible way you could put together some sort of flowchart that kind of shows how this process plays out? because I know a lot of people would like to see some sort of flowchart on that. If you're saying right now, no. Yeah. No, I understand you can't do it. Sure. I can put a flowchart and as a graphic into the public engagement. Thank you. Appreciate that. It would be it would be relatively simple and fright and and probably aggravatingly simple. Rebecca,

so I must have missed this. When did this July 1st, 2027 thing happen? because I thought I mean that that means by we go to by right from that point forward then right

yeah so um during the last legislative session they passed a bill to amend M lupa to address the happenings with the maid lawsuit and so that's where the requirement for the 15-day notice came in before that there was no 15-day notice period so they actually at the legislature had it sunset effectively July 1st to 2027 because they knew they'd be back in session before then if they needed to keep it going or not. So, um but because of the decision, they're going to let it sunset is my guess. Andy, any questions?

I do. Um, so if I'm understanding this correctly, for the next year until 2027, we'll there'll be anytime you make a land use decision, there'll be a notice period and people can comment. That's prior to the land use decision. So, it's a preliminary decision saying, "Okay, it seems to meet all the qualifications, but we'll still send a notice out and people have an opportunity to comment." Okay. Y and but that and they have 15 days to do that from the time you send out the notification. Yep. After next year.

Yeah. That that goes away and we'll only notice people if it's there's clear increased either new or increased impacts that weren't considered previously. And at that point, we would notify the public. um and have an opportunity to comment or and also notify the applicant that we need more information. They either need to do an additional study of some sort or whatever and then that's evaluated. Right. And you know all those processes once the decisions made are appealable to the plan commission and that decision is appealable to the city council.

Correct. Now, under the theory that we can't be more restrictive necessarily, but we can be more open than state regulations, could we as a city just simply say our notice, we're going to continue to operate with preliminary and then uh 15 days and then carry on. That's a legal question. I I think it's kind of clarified. We're not supposed to do that.

Although Although I I can read you the language unless you want to say something. I mean, here's I have that. This is what it says here. So, it says it, you know, I don't know if it says it's not subject to notification, but it says it's not subject to further public review or comment. I think you'd be in a very great area probably leaning toward violating M loopa. It it the intent of M loopa has always been to eliminate that public comment period and review process uh because we've done all the work upfront. And so with that 15 days, the fact that it's explicit now and then they get rid of it, I would say you would be violating M loopa if you were to continue to allow for public comment and notice.

Okay. I I understand everything you just said. I respect everything you just said. I may support this, but it's not going off my to-do list. Just so you know, maybe another hill. I mean, I'm not sure. We've got we've got another legislative session coming up. Maybe we can get that fixed. Who knows? Okay. Thank you. Um I believe we uh called for a public hearing on this matter. Any public comment on this time at on this matter? Not seeing any any online.

Those of you who are attending virtually, if you would like to speak towards this matter, please raise your hand. I think we're good. All right. Great. I close the public hearing and I'll look to the council for a motion. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion resol uh to adopt resolution number 26-9, a resolution adopting the vision Whitefish 2045 public engagement plan. I think it'll be 2608. Yeah. Second.

Any further discussion? Not seeing any. All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. On to what will be our resolution 2609. uh a resolution reszoning 5099 East uh 6th Street and 806 Spokane Avenue. There you go. Right here. Over here, Wendy. We're so glad to see you. Yes. Thank you.

Um so the next two public hearings are just housekeeping matters. They are PUDs that have expired that we need to remove the PUD and just bring them back to the regular zoning. So the very first one um is over there on East 6th Street. Back in 2022 June, you approved um ordinance 2210 for a PUD for a mixeduse um building um per condition number 15 that expired in August of 2025. Um and so that is why we are requesting a reszone. Um so again, the property is located at 6 and Spokane Avenue. Um is currently developed with professional offices. It is surrounded by commercial and the White Fish River has all the public services and facilities. We noticed the neighbors and put it online and we didn't receive any comments. Um we re we review zone changes according to the criteria in the reg in the zoning chapter. Um it complies with the growth policy and most of the items are really directly related to development which there's no development proposal at this time. The planning board or planning commission held a public hearing um on March 19th and no one from the public spoke and they unanimously recommended approval. Can answer any questions?

Any questions for Wendy on her staff report? Yep. I think was it Dana's report or was it your report that said that there the trail is going to be allowed to be opened? Um that's my manager's report, but um I have met with the owners of the new property and the PUB did call out the trail as part of the public benefit. Um but the new owners um are willing to sign a month-to-month lease for us to continue uh keeping that trail open. They aren't sure of their plans for the property. Um so they weren't willing to commit to anything further at this time. Thank you.

All right. We uh published or we published this for a public hearing this evening. I'll open the public hearing now. Not seeing any here. Any online, Michelle? Those of you who are online, if you'd like to speak towards this, uh please raise your hand. We're good. Great. I'll close the public hearing at this time and look to the council for a motion. I would move that we approve resolution number 26-09. Second. Motion and seconded. Any further discussion?

Just a quick editorial comment. I guess this is something that has always rubbed me the wrong way in this community and Wendy knows exactly what I'm talking about probably. But something goes through the process. We burn a lot of staff time. We burn a lot of public time and everything else. And the day the ink dries on the approval, a for sale sign goes up on it. And it's something that just done simply to flip a piece of property and make money and we go through a lot of staff time, public time, heartache time and everything else get promised the moon and we end up here three years later. So just a quick editorial note.

I hear you. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. Wendy. Okay, so the next um housekeeping item is the Edgewood 90 project, which was located kind of on the other side of the train tracks from the dog park. Um back in September 2022, you folks approved an ordinance for a PUD um for a 15 lot subdivision. It had five industrial lots, one lot with 30 multipplex um units,

um and then some single family, more rural kind of designations. Um but in October it expired. Um so the purpose is to eliminate the PUD part but retain the WR2, the WCR, and the WA. The property is located at 1291 East Edgewood plus some unadjusted lots to the east. It's about 92 acres. Um it's surrounded by rural um types of land uses. Um water and sewer were never extended to this project. They were going to bore under the BNSF railway. Um so that never occurred. Um, we did notice the neighbors. We did not get any comments and similar to the other one, we reviewed it according to the criteria and the zoning regulations. The planning commission held a public hearing. No one spoke and they recommended approval.

Great. Thanks, Wendy. Any questions for Wendy on her staff report? Not seeing any. I'll open the public hearing now. Anyone wants to speak on this particular matter? Michelle, anyone online? Those of you online, if you'd like to speak towards this, please raise your hand. We're good. Great. I'll close the public hearing at this time and look to council for a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution 26-10.

Motion made by councelor uh Norton and seconded by councelor Cornell. Um, any further discussion? Uh, just a point of order. I think that's Wendy's official mic drop. Congratulations.

Thank you, Craig. I was going to get to that at the end, but I like your I like your style. Yeah. Any uh any further discussion? All those in favor? I do have one one thing. Thank you, Wendy. You have been just been a joy to work with all these many many years. Thank you.

All those in favor? All those opposed, like sign. Matter passes unanimously. Now we're on to our ordinance 26. Uh, no, no, 04. You're right. 2604. Uh, ordinance amending title 7, chapter 5 and title seven of chapter 2 of the Whitefish city code. First reading.

Good evening. Um, so in 2017, uh, we passed the Whitefish tree ordinance and that outlined the regulations regarding the care of public trees. However, recently staff has found that um in circumstances involving private trees that are encroaching in the public right of way, the code is somewhat cumbersome and it does not account for all the circumstances that we have encountered. Um so as trees and shrubs grow along public rights of way, the overgrowth often encroaches on the sidewalks, alleys, and roadways. And it's our responsibility to keep the public ways clear for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. However, the current code does not allow staff to clear those encroachments. Instead, it outlines a pretty arduous process for clearing obstructions from the right ofway. So to streamline the process um increase efficiencies and response times and provide better service to the public, we have identified revisions to two sections of the city code under title 7 chapter 5 section 4 um titled authority of director of parks and recreation and appeal to the board of park commissioners. Staff recommends removing section G as it references private trees and a section that is dedicated to public trees. It only references sidewalks and bike lanes, leaving alleyways and other rights of way unmentioned. It identifies inaccurate height requirements for limbs and branches. And it outlines a lengthy process that places the burden and the cost to clear the right of way on the property owner and not on the city. Under title 7, chapter 2, section 1, encroachments, staff recommends adding tree, limb, or shrub to the list of items that may not encroach on city properties in sections 1 A and C1. In section C3, staff recommends adding private trees interfering with public

rightway. The limbs or branches of a tree or shrub may not extend over any public sidewalk at a height of less than 10 feet or 14 feet over a bike lane, street, alley, or other public rights of way. The city reserves the right to remove any tree, limb, or shrub encroaching on the public right ofway. The reason for this addition is that uh there are several reasons. Um it places private trees and shrubs in the list of other potential private encroachments on public rights of way. It identifies streets and alleys as well as sidewalks and bike lanes as public rights of way that are to remain free from encroachment. It identifies accurate height requirements for the limbs and branches and it outlines a streamlined process that allows the city to clear the rights of way. There are no financial requirements associated with the approval of these revisions and I do respectfully recommend that the city council approve the revisions to the city code and I can answer any questions if you have them.

Any questions for Maria on her staff report? Not seeing any. We published this for a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing now. Anybody wish to speak on this matter. Anybody online? Those of you attending online, if you'd like to speak towards this, please raise your hand.

We're good. Good. I'll close the public hearing this time at this time and turn the matter over to council for a motion. Mr. Deputy mayor, I would make a motion that we approve ordinance number 26-04, I believe, if I was keeping track there on a first reading. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. And we'll move on to our proposed ordinance 2605, an ordinance amending uh title six of the motor vehicle and traffic and title 7 of the streets and public ways of the city of Whitefish Code. Bridger.

Good evening, deputy mayor and city council. Um before you tonight is an ordinance amending title six city code vehicles and traffic general provisions. As technological advances are made and the interest in alternative transportation increases, the city must regularly regularly evaluate the city code to make sure that it stays current with the needs, interests, and actions of the public to adequately provide guidance to the public on which types of transportations are permitted on various transportation systems. Staff reviewed existing sections of city code related to the use of motorized and non-motorized vehicles and equipment on paths and public ways and offered suggested revisions to the bicycle and pedestrian committee during their February 2025 meeting. In coordination with the committee, staff updated title six of Whitefish city code to reflect Montana code current trends necessary regulations for public safety. On August 18th of last year, city council held a work session to review and discuss said ordinance. As provided in the redline version, I believe it's on page 653 of your packet of the ordinance. Uh staff recommended the following revisions. Title six, um the title. Section one, the short title. Section two, definitions. Section five, speed limits. Section eight, vehicle equipment. Section 10, driving and bicycle lanes. Section 11, traveling on shared use paths. Section 12, traveling on public sidewalks. And section 13, believe there's an error on the staff report. Should be 13, operating a golf cart. Uh, as for um a minimal financial requirement, uh, we're approximately $2,400 for purchase and installation of

signage. Um, and staff respectfully, uh, recommend that the city council adopt the revisions of title six of city code. And I can answer any questions. Any questions for Bridger on his staff report? Rebecca,

Richard, do you mind just telling the public what the speed limits are of the ebikes? Is it I think it's is it 20 miles an hour or 15 miles an hour um just since we're covering it and this is a new rule for um the city. So, there's different speed requirements for each um category of of ebike, but the speed limit for our shared use paths paths, if I can find it, and Maria might know it off the top of her head. 15 miles per hour.

So, 15 miles an hour for shared use paths, no matter what you're on. Is that correct? Okay. just wanted it to be publicly stated so that if people don't read their minutes and that's ebikes and that's regular bicycles as well. Thank you. Nice to see this get done. I'm sure Toby will be happy with us too.

Any questions, further questions for Bridger? We publish or uh publish this for a public hearing. At this at this time I will open the public hearing. Mr. Mayor, members of council, um Richard Hilder, 104 Fth Street. Um, with regards to uh, ebikes, um, I think that there are a couple of things that, um, need to be clarified. uh and that is that this definition of ebikes and then the enforcement of those rules and regulations could be and could become a little problematic. Uh I live right on the bike path and I see uh all manner of motorized vehicles using the bike path. uh at speeds. Uh maybe I should ask to borrow the speed gun again, Bridger. Um as they come whizzing by. And it's clear to me that uh as they're coming up the hill, uh no one is not no one many people are not pedaling. Uh they're riding a motorcycle. And um I I'm I'm worried about that because when they round the corner and head between uh my house and the Mountain View Manor, uh they pick up speed through that twisty narrow little piece and I'm afraid somebody's going to get hurt at some

point. Uh the second uh is that when we first dis you first brought this up, Bridgetger brought it to the council on September 18th of last year. Um, and I made many comments then, some of which were incorporated and some of which were not. But then later I brought up this question of these self-balancing minibikes. And these are these short little miniikes um that are electric and you can pop a wheelie at 30 miles an hour uh and go for quite some distance. and seems to me that they have no place on our bike ped um facilities. And finally, one of the questions of enforcement uh and I have no idea how our police department's going to deal with it. If I am restricted or say, "Oh, yeah, it's uh it's a type one or a class one ebike and it's really a class three motorbike flying down the bike path. All I have to do is go to Amazon or eBay and buy a sticker for my bike that says it's a class one or a type one, a type two, or whatever type I want to stick on it." And uh uh so when I get pulled over, I say, "Oh yeah, see my sticker." Uh it's like people who abuse handicap or parking situations. Um then uh finally um the question as I said I got a little bit um late to the party here the dance and I think there was one other thing that I wanted to talk about uh with regards to that but um uh I'll leave it at that. Oh I know what it was. The the ordinance

now says only on either side of Central Avenue between railway and third uh riding on sidewalks, city sidewalks is prohibited. And I would suggest you might want to extend that from the bridge over Highway 93 south of town uh all the way as you come around on Spokane. uh come around and include uh all of um what is now uh Spokane to Veterans Memorial Bridge on both sides of that sidewalk.

Thanks, Richard. Any additional public comment? Are there any online? Those of you who are online, if you'd like to speak towards this item, please raise your hand. We're good.

Um, I've got if I may I question for Bridger on this ordinance. I understand what we're saying or we're trying to do here. The the one that sticks out to me is that we've limited what we want to do on in downtown with bikes. Just can't ride bikes on the sidewalks. Okay, I agree with that. And I'm a little concerned about riding bikes on paths, sidewalks that are not sized to shared use paths. Do we differentiate in here where they can other than Central Avenue where you can ride a bike on a narrow sidewalk? We do not. Okay. Do we think we need to when when we looked at um prohibiting bicycles and any um riding of any type? skateboards, it's uh one wheels, it's all of that. We looked at the area where we get the most concentrated foot traffic and that's that downtown corridor and and shrunk it to that. I believe we can always extend that area as the city grows and the need grows. Um I really looked at the um downtown area to complement our shared youth paths coming into the park and then also our kids accessing the school. That's why we don't have anything along Spokane. I I don't think it's safe to push those kids riding bicycle to and from school onto the roadway, especially at that younger age. So, that's why it's it's written the way it is. Um, we have a couple of uh stores, bike shops downtown that I wanted to I I thought about in doing that and those are in areas where the

sidewalks are quite a bit wider. There still is a reasonable imprudent um you have to give audible um notice of taking over a pedestrian. You have to give right away to a pedestrian. All of that is in code. Um so those type of things I felt would take care of that. And we were just looking at that um congested area where we received the most complaints about near misses and people coming in and out of uh storefronts. Um and and to speak to the um the the electric bicycles and electric motorcycles if it does not have pedals um the motorcycles. Um we actually had a jury trial um reference this on a a juvenile that was on and we won that jury trial. Um so those are considered motorcycles. They are a motor vehicle. They can't be ridden on shared youth's paths. They can't be on sidewalks. And if you're going to ride them on public streets, you have to have a driver's license and they have to be equipped. Um so, um our officers, our SRO's when we started seeing this last year, immediately contacted those that wrote them to school. Um we stopped individuals riding along sidewalks and and streets. We contacted their parents. We worked with their parents. They came and picked them up. We wrote warnings. We wrote citations. And we went to a trial on one of them. Um, and I believe we've really stamped downtown down. Are we still going to see it? Yes. There's always going to be some that are going to push the limits and continue to ride them, and we'll continue to enforce that. The other thing we looked at with just the area downtown is the ability to enforce it. Um, the ability to enforce bicycles on sidewalks throughout the city, um, it's not feasible. That'd be very difficult to do. Um, a lot of signage. It would cost a lot of money because the state is pretty specific that you have to sign that adequately. Um, and there's a lot of sidewalks to patrol and deal with. And where do we want these smaller

kids to do that? How do we differentiate from age, uh, type of bike, those type of things? So, um, that's where we're at. Great. Thank you. Any further questions for Bridger? Um, will there be now that we're going to pass this tonight, is there going to be outreach to the schools at all so that um that the kids are informed of these changes? Yes, most definitely. And there'll be signage going up and I believe we have a pretty good period of time before this goes into law. Great.

I would certainly entertain a motion. U Mr. Mayor, I'll move to approve ordinance number 26-05. Motion made and seconded. I just have a couple comments.

Sure. Um, as somebody who rides their bike more than the average person, I will say that there are limited places where um where if you are exercising what Bridger said, uh, prudent um, uh, judgment that you would encounter where you would have to where you wouldn't want to be on the sidewalk. And that's really just Central Avenue. Um, and I think that it's important to to understand that uh because there are places where you as a bicyclist, you don't want to be on the road. And Memorial Bridge is one of those scary ass places where you don't want to be on the road. Pardon my French, but you don't want to be on the road. You want to be crossing the road there and not riding with traffic very often on on the bridge or in and out of town. Those those sidewalks are plenty wide. um at least for now as Bridger said is if if you know development incre increases and somehow those sidewalks become more congested then it might be you know something to pay attention to but for now I think we're we're good with that. The other thing that I think that I I would hope that this country comes to at some point is just the understanding that anything with a motor is a motor cycle. I don't care if it's pedal assist or if it has pedals and you and you only have to pedal if you want to and you just use the throttle. That is still a motorcycle and they have no business on our sidewalks and you should be licensed to ride one and you should be a certain age to ride one. Um, and they just don't belong on sidewalks if they can go over 15 miles an hour with some little kid on a throttle rather than somebody pedalling it um, under their own power because you can get up you can get up that fast on

the sidewalks and the shared use paths around here. I've done it before. Uh hopefully I don't get a citation um in inner rears but uh you know you just have to be careful and the problem is that people are not careful on those things especially in a tourist town and I just think they have absolutely no business on our sidewalks at all no matter whether they're pedal assist pedal throttle and I'm glad that you've fought the fight the good fight on those motorcycles because those things are extremely dangerous for kids and for and for um people driving and for pedestrians as well. So that's my two cents on it. I would love for us to take a stand and say, "Hey, no motors on our sidewalks no matter what. Unless you have unless you have um you know, if you have a handicap sticker in your car, yeah, maybe we'll let you do that." But it's going to be a much smaller kind of thing than something that can go 28 miles an hour. It's ridiculous.

Thanks, Steve. Any further comments? All those in favor? All those opposed like sign. Matter passes unanimously. We are now on to communications from our parks and recreation director. Consideration of an uh to to award a construction contract for Armory Parking lot and the open space project.

Good evening again. Um, as you know, the parks and recreation department has been working on projects within phase four of the Armory Park master plan. And in FY27, we plan to complete the parking lot and the open space projects. Invitations to bid were advertised in the daily inner lake on March 15th and 22nd, and the bids were opened on March 31st at 11:00 a.m. in the council conference room. We received six bids, and all bids were accepted. The bids ranged from 43% lower to 69% higher than the engineer's estimate for the base bid. Though there was uh one bid irregularity, it was a typo and it was easily updated and did not change the outcome of the bid. The apparent low bidder was Veta Contracting LLC. Um and the bid tabulations are included in your packet for your review. Financially, the FY27 budget will identify $550,000 in resort tax funds and an additional $750,000 in LWCF funding. So, there is certainly adequate funding for the completion of this project. And based on that, um, I do respectfully recommend awarding the Armory Park parking lot and open space project bid to VETA Contracting LLC for a total contract amount of $32,719.78.

Thank you, Maria. Any questions for Maria on her staff report? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion to award the construction contract for the Armory Park parking lot and open space project to Veta Contracting LLC for the amount of $32,719.78.

I'll second. Motion made and seconded. Uh any further discussion? Just a quick question for white. It's a bigger spread than we normally see in bids, like really big. So, well, I think you're taking Do we know why that was? I mean,

you're taking Knife River into that consideration and they were significantly higher than um even LHC, but Beta is a smaller contracting um company. They also got the bid for um the last phase, and so they're currently staged in the park, so there may be some efficiencies that they may have been seeing. Um, but it was I mean six bids just made it pretty competitive and um I think some people, you know, some contractors were throwing some numbers at it, but there were some that were being a little bit more specific about what they thought they could accomplish. Don't get me wrong, I'm not glad that I am very glad actually that we came in that far under the engineers estimate. So that's great. Yeah,

that that's kind of kind of Do we want to look look the gift horse in the mouth or not? I don't know. Um, all those in favor, all those opposed, like sign. Matter passes unanimously. And now we're on to communications from our city manager. Your written, her written report is in the um in our packet. Any further questions for Dana? Dana, anything further?

No, I just want to say thanks to Wendy for all of her hard work at the city for the last 20 years. Um, she's done more than 20 years. Um, she's an amazing employee. We're all going to miss her, but we're excited for her to finally get to enjoy what she deserves, a great retirement. So, um, with that, that is all I have this evening.

Great. Thank you. Um, I think it's, uh, now we're on to a res another resolution amending the annexation and development agreement between um, POTS and PP Trust, uh, Alpine 9340 Investors LLC, and the city of Whitefish. Thank you, Deputy Mayor and City Council. Um, Angie is out, so I am presenting her staff report for you this evening. It's on page 717 of your packet. Um, just a little bit of history. This property is one that the city council approved a developers agreement with um as part of annexation agreement. Since um that time, they have broken ground down at 40 and 93 and have constructed the southern three buildings of the plans. When the developers agreement was um created, there was intent to actually start with the three northern buildings. Um but uh they found that those buildings would be better to start with. Um with phase one now under construction, part of the developers agreement says that under phase one, they have to complete um the path and the bus stop and the improvements on Highway 40. Um because of construction of phase two being the now northern portion of the property, having to do those prior to phase two um is not efficient. Um and actually will will probably cause damage and and quite honestly the path will not be usable because of the construction fencing that will be required for those southern or northern uh three buildings. So, um they have requested a change to the an amendment to the development agreement and that um is also within your packet. Um one thing did move to phase one um was the workout facility that was originally play planned for phase two. They've moved that to phase one. And then the installation of the shared use path along Highway 93 south

and highway 40. um the completion of the approach improvements on Highway 40 and the installation of the snow bus stop have all moved uh to phase two so that they can actually use uh the site to to construct uh the other three buildings. Staff is supportive of this and recommends approval of the resolution. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Tana? Steve, I do have a quick question. is why did it why did they start with the other end and leave us kind of in the lurch on these other things? We'll ask Brandon. Oh, I'm sure this guy's got an explanation.

Good evening. Um, we wanted to get more units built, so we were able to build the southern three buildings and we're able to get I think it's Don't quote me on it, but it's like 120 or 130 units. It ends up being about 20 more units with that phase than the original first phase. So, we wanted to get more units in so we could get more people housed, more revenue build.

I get that, but without the other improvements, it makes it hard to get in and out of there. Even if people are living there while you're doing all this other construction, it's not as connected. I I I understand. Man, I mean, we can't go backwards at this point, but it just it just always gives me heartburn when these kind of things come up when we were promised one thing and then it goes a different direction and then we have to postpone these benefits that the city's supposed to get until the very end of the project because it sounds like those things aren't going to happen until the end now. Yeah, we're we're hoping to get started on the second phase this time next year. So, we're looking at about one year skip on that.

All right. Thank you. Any further questions on this matter? I would entertain a motion. Rebecca, I move to approve resolution 26-11, which amends the annexation and development agreement between Pots and Pippy Trust, Alpine 9340 Investors LLC, and the city of Whitefish. Second

seconded by um councelor Cornell. Any further discussions? All those in favor? Matter passes unanimously and on we go. Get her done. Thank you. Um thanks Brandon. Now we're on to communications from city councilors and the mayor. Jeppe, we'll start with you.

Well, I'm I'm pleased that we got to this point with vision 2045. Probably I won't be around to see the results, but I wish the new generations to do better and better. Steve, thanks. I have a couple quick questions, just things that have arisen over more than once. What what's going on at the Baptist church? Can you give us an update on that or next to the Baptist church, Dave? There there's a development project going on. Uh, yeah, that's a, you know, commercially zoned lot. Uh, apartments are used by right under state law. So, yeah, they just needed a building permit to build there.

Okay. So, they're putting apartments in there. Okay. Thanks. People I've had more than one person ask me about that. Um, and then this might be for uh it's either for Greg. Um, maybe for Greg. Uh, I noticed a lot of horse manure on the sidewalk on Caro the other day. Um, and it's been there for a little over a week now, so it's kind of dried up. Is there is there a a rule about using our paths with horses? Our shared use paths with horses? Did you say horse manure? Yes. Um, man, I don't know. I'm not quite sure. I because we have to pick up dog poop.

We can clean it up, but I'm I have not I I drive Carol a couple times a day and I haven't seen any horses out there, but um I I didn't see the horse, but I know it was there. You sure? We we have enforced the cleanup of uh livestock um poo in the past mainly when they tether them to the downtown area and the alleys and those type of things. We've contacted I we haven't received any complaints that I'm aware of reference it but mark this as your first complaint I guess on Carol. Okay. By your house right there at like just south just north of my house on the next block. All right. I mean it it I almost rode over it with my bike and I've done that before and it's really not a fun

get that cleaned up. Not a fun thing when it gets all over your bike and your legs and stuff. So, it wasn't my daughter. I can tell you that much.

Okay. Uh the other thing I have to say is for Wendy, she's not here, but maybe I'm sure she'll be listening. Um, I've had the opportunity to work with Wendy for a number of years and I've also gotten to know her outside of the um outside of the professional relationship with the um in in the pool relationship uh with swimming with her um children and my children swimming together for a number of years. and uh she's just a she and her husband are both just really top quality people and I'm really sad to see her go and also very excited for her in her um new realm and I'm wondering if maybe there's a grandbaby coming and that's why she's getting out now but uh haven't really talked to her about it so we'll just we'll just start a rumor um or at least put some pressure on on her daughter. Um, and then the last thing again, uh, I do want to thank everybody that's been involved in the Whitefish 2045 process. Allan, thank you for sticking with us. He's not here either, so uh, he got out of here as quickly as he could. Um, I didn't see any tears of joy from him yet, but, uh, I assume that there were there will be some. Um and uh but to the planning commission, to everybody on here who filled in at one time or another, and to um to all of you for kind of keeping it going and keeping the momentum going and really uh focusing in on the things that are really important to this town because that's the vision of what comes for the next 20 years is really important. And if we look back to 2007, uh the first growth policy that we passed or the first modern, I guess, growth policy that we passed, we've come a long way, baby, and we've done a lot of really good things for this town and this community. And um I hope that this policy, I'm sure this policy will continue um in that uh in that way. And 20 years from now, we'll be looking back

and saying, "Wow, we really did a good job." And and for the record, Steve, it wasn't my horse either. Rebecca,

um Yep. I just wanted to follow up with the staff about the Armory neighbors uh questions. Um, and just did you want to respond to them since so many of them came tonight and they have con I guess they don't want to give up their green space, but they do want help with the bridge and maintenance and they're worried about erosion. Um, that about it. Okay. I just wondered if you wanted to address any of that. Yeah, I mean I I'm not sure it's something we're going to finalize here tonight, but I can tell you we've been working with those property owners since 2024 um on the Armory Road project. We have uh the storm water easement in place. There's already a a 10-in pipe that comes down in between those two lots. Um and we started working with the property owners to improve it as part of the Armory Road project. And then all of a sudden um as part of that they wanted us to improve their bridge. So um we've been working with them on their bridge what for two years now I think about two years that that bridge has been failing. Um we're not intentionally sending more pedestrians that direction. We're just improving the pedestrian corridor that um they are required to maintain as part of their their subdivision. in the Willowbrook subdivision that was approved back in the 80s. Um, so we have a final uh public meeting tomorrow night and so I intend to have additional conversations with them, but I I I don't think it's the council's or the city's obligation to improve that bridge. I think it was part of their original subdivision um conditions and um what we're looking for from them is just some an easement to improve the storm water condition that currently

exists. Is there any way to see if the other subdivision is diverting water in onto their property? because that was news to me that they felt like that was that had increased the flow through the No, it didn't increase the flow. The Mountain Brook project um does have an overflow that that comes in that direction, but it it didn't increase the flow in any way.

Yeah. All right. Sounds like it's a long story, but you're making progress. So, thank you. Um, yeah, I just really excited that the growth policy, which is now the community plan, is done. I remember putting that on our council goals in 2020 after um hearing about it for so long on the planning board. And so, I knew it was going to be really hard to get it done. And I'm sorry that the planning commission had to work so hard on it. Um, but I think it's really a great document and I appreciate the staff time. Um, just really pushing to get it done in time for us to be compliant with the law. Um, and that's all. Thank you,

Andy. Hi, T. I'm sad to see Wendy go and I'm happy for her at the same time. I think the care and contribution she's made to this community over the years, while maybe not noticed by a lot of people, certainly are noticed by our staff and certainly noticed by all of us that have sat up here for the 20 years tenure that she spent with us. And she will be missed. She's not going to be gone. That's great. So, we will still get to see her around. And I know she's having a retirement party. So, I encourage everyone to be there. Check your email because the date is in there in the location also. But even more importantly to that, I really think that we would be remiss in our duties if we did not congratulate Ben and Brooks on the arrival of Emerson Mary Gold, their new daughter. So, and one of the reasons Ben is not here tonight is because they have not slept more than two hours since that arrival. So, anyway, he was all a little fried, but they're doing well and I really want to congratulate them and I know they're super excited and it's a really awesome thing. So, it's good to welcome a new life into this community.

I have very little this evening. I am going to say that um I too am way way way proud of the work that we've done on the growth policy and that it is finally in a finalized form and done. Um and for Wendy, um this is not a slight on anyone else in that planning department. if I ever had a question, I always thought of her first. I always knew that she would have the answer. Um, and that she would be available. And again, everybody's busy, but I I don't know why that's the default I had. And I'm I will miss her terribly. Um, I will miss her shining face here at the podium because her staff reports were second to none. Um, and so, uh, I wish her all the well and I congratulate her on, uh, the opportunity that's going to open up for her now. So, I think that's great. Um, and that's about all I've got for this evening. So, thanks all. We're done. Was