Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Good morning, all. I will call the Monday, September 14th, Board of County Commissioners Meeting to order. Chris, will you do roll call, please?

Commissioner Hulls?

Here.

Commissioner Chilcott?

Here.

Commissioner Burroughs? Here.

Commissioner Chilcott, will you lead us this morning? Sure. Public comment, for those participating via Granicus, you may call 406-375-6513 in order to provide your public comment. And the first item on our agenda is a proclamation via resolution for the Bitterroot Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Week, September 17th to the 23rd of 2026. Good morning.

Good morning.

Pull that a little closer to you. There you go. Thank you. Your name, please?

I'm Peggy Hannon, and I am a member of the Bitterroot Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. And every year, the daughters do a lot of work around Constitution Week. We provide information to various businesses to try and get the public aware of the Constitution and what it means and why our form of government is so unique and special. And we also go to all the schools in our area, which we go from the whole Bitterroot Valley up into a couple of the other counties. I think we have four counties. There are only nine chapters in Montana. But it is one of our big focuses because we feel that Learning how our government works and what kind of participation and stuff people should do is important. So the proclamation is simply a recognition. If you want to read it, you can. And it just endorses the importance of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, the proclamation number 4806 in Ravalla County reads, Whereas September 17, 2026 marks the 239th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention, and whereas our nation's founders, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their property, did ordain and establish this Constitution, whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate the occasion, and whereas public law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America designating September 17th through the 23rd as Constitutional Week. Now, therefore, we, the Board of Commissioners of Ravalla County, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17th through 23rd as Constitutional Week. And we ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals of the framers of the Constitution in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through the guardian of our liberties, remembering that lost rights may never be regained, dated This is today, 14th day of September, 2026. This chairman moved to approve and adopt resolution 4806. Second.

Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adopt resolution 4806, proclamation from Ravalli County for Constitution Week. Is there any public comment on that motion? Is there any further discussion?

Thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Call for the question, Greg. Aye. And Jeff. Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate what you do. Thank you.

Have a great day. Commissioners, the next meeting is not starred, but I'm not sure if others are coming or not.

Okay. And that would be the... SHROCK FAMILY TRANSFER. THERE'S OTHERS COMING, I'M SURE. SO LET'S PAUSE UNTIL WHAT TIME IS IT SCHEDULED?

1030 ON THE PUBLIC CALENDAR.

PAUSE UNTIL 1030. The short family transfer.

Rob. Good morning. All right. So we had, this is the second meeting on this. Bring up the staff report real quick. A few people coming in. So this is the second meeting we had scheduled The public comment on the complaint, and now this is the deliberation meeting. It was originally scheduled for August 26, 2026 at 10 a.m., moved to September 14, 2026. And just a real quick summary, the planning department received a complaint. I'll read through the kind of request for commission action here real quick. so this meeting sorry there we go everyone can see it Okay, so this is a request from the Planning Department to review a complaint filed against William Shroff's family transfer subdivision exemption on Track A of Certificate of Survey number 511409. Applicable regulations are Chapter 11 of the subdivision regulations and Chapter 763207, divisions or aggregations of land exempted from review, Montana Code annotated. Background. On February 7, 2025, William Schrock submitted a family transfer subdivision exemption application. The application proposed a single gift of land to the following immediate family members of William Schrock, spouse Martha Schrock, daughter Regina Johnson, maiden name Schrock, daughter Gianna Wilcox, maiden name Regina Wilcox, maiden name Schrock, and son Lincoln Schrock. William Shaw retained the remainder parcel. The proposed configuration of tracks is shown in the application materials. Planning Department approved the application on March 28, 2025. The approval was recorded on September 29, 2025, as shown on Certificate of Survey 808820-F. Ravalli County received a complaint alleging improper use of the family transfer exemption dated March 21, 2026, submitted by the Sapphire Coalition. Board of County Commissioners held a public meeting on June 3rd, 2026 to take public comment on the complaint. Public comments are summarized and attached to the draft staff report. So the public comments are summarized in a table here that's provided on the staff report. This has been posted on our website. We did receive three written comments and then the verbal comments during the meeting, we had 17. So following the public comment, Planning Department prepared a draft staff report documenting the Ravalli County subdivision regulations evasion criteria review and the applicable regulations for BCC review and consideration. We do not have a recommendation on this motion. So just like when we do subdivision review, I've prepared a similar staff report that outlines the background information, some of the supporting law and regulations, and then the review process, noting the planning department's findings. And this is published as a draft for the commissioners to go through, and at the end, if make a decision whichever way they want to go. So we left it blank conclusion following the public comment about any type of evasion that was alleged in the complaint. Thanks, Rob. Thank you, Rob.

OK. At this point, I will open for public comment. Please come to the microphone. and state your name, please, and provide your public comment.

My name is Andy Mackey, and I'm a rancher that uses well-grown water. And I'm also president of the Sapphire Coalition. And I guess I would ask the commissioners, given the, respectfully, Given that there's a current lawsuit with the county with some of Commissioner Chilcott's family members on a very similar situation, I guess we would ask that maybe for all parties, would it be best for Commissioner Chilcott to recuse himself on this? I have no conflict of interest, legal or perception, so no, I will not recuse myself. I appreciate that, Greg. I will submit just a letter for the record.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Bradley Paulson, 606 Anchor Drive, Corvallis. We are neighbors to this property. And I just want people to know that I met with Willie Schrock shortly after him acquiring the property and specifically asked him if his plan was to develop it. And he would not answer the question. He skirted around it. by saying, well, I just want to do something for my kids. But we all know that these contractors are using this family split provision to circumvent doing it the right way. And a lot of times, it causes issues with irrigation water, which we all know, and also groundwater in that area. It's very limited. Personally, I'd like to see the law modified to a point where the applicant would have to sign a sworn statement that they are not avoiding, trying to avoid the subdivision laws and put some teeth in it to the point where if any of the lots are sold within the first 10 years, there's a $100,000 penalty for doing so. Anything less than that, and the contractors just pass it on to their buyers. And so it's got to be an amount that makes them think twice about using it this way. Thank you.

Anyone else? Skip Chisholm Hamilton. Just for clarifications and a little bit of history, Could one of the commissioners tell us how we got to this point where, for instance, in a family transfer situation, it seems like it was about two sessions ago that it was our own Senator Jason Ellsworth had something on the floor that actually passed that shortened the time that maybe a parcel could be sold. Am I on the right track? Could you tell us how we got here? so that this is part of the conflict. Thank you, sir.

Well, we used to have a, Ravalla County had evasion criteria that was required a three-year holding period for the gifted parcel. The remainder parcel was completely at the discretion of the landowner. They could sell it immediately, but the gifted parcel had to be held for three years by the beneficiary. There were exceptions written into that that could come up and shorten that time frame. Then the legislature changed that law and they put a two year time frame on the holding period of the gifted parcel in Montana law. And while we're on that note, the other thing was I was around when we redrafted these regulations and I'll say right now that the This was an oversight, the public comment on the exempt transfers of land, because they are not subject to review other than administratively by staff. And the public comment is, at least in my opinion, it was an oversight that was left in there. I don't mind being transparent, and that's not a bad thing. But I think there's a misconception that the public comment is a review period. Just by the very definition, an exemption is an exemption subject to the Planning Act to review. And so that was an oversight, but we're living with our mistake now. And we are taking public comment. But if they meet the criteria, I don't believe they're subject to review. That's my opinion.

Okay, thank you. Is there any further public comment?

Yes, my name is Albert Babel. I live at 997 Willow Creek Road in Corvallis. I'm a firm believer that more is not always better. When we look at just unfettered subdivisions in Ravalli County or anywhere, there's a big price to pay, whether it's exempt wells, because You just don't have a subdivision. There's all other things that go along with it that's questions for another day, but something people need to be aware of. One of the things that SAFIRE Coalition, which I'm a member of, is not opposed to is family transfers. We're opposed to the masquerading of family transfers into subdivisions. A family transfer was a great thing to be put forward in this county and many other places that use them for the benefit of a true family transfer to keep a kid on the farm, keep a family on the ranch together, not to create a 10 house, 50 house subdivision. And so even though this is just a review process, it's important to listen to the neighbors and taxpayers and voters in the community to get their feeling before a total decision is made in my opinion. That's something I think we need to consider. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm William Schrock, and my purpose for purchasing the property and doing a family transfer was to help my kids. If I had let my neighbors or misled them in any way, I didn't think I did. I have a, my youngest daughter lives there and we built a barn on the property this year and they're loving living up there. Again, I don't know what all my kids are going to do, but my idea was that it's very difficult to buy a piece of property and build a home. and that I just want to help them out. In my heart of hearts, I don't think that there was ever a decision that I'm going to try to evade subdivision rules. I've been involved with several subdivisions and always felt like I wanted to follow the rules and be able to have a plan that we can actually know what we're doing. But this is what this is about. you know, what my kids will do down the road. You know, my daughter lives there. They would love to have more land like some of the other people do, and so that's one of their things that they'd like to do in the future. But for now, it's a place for my kids to live and have a start in life. As far as the irrigation, I have no intentions of taking more than my water share, and I would be happy to meet with my neighbors I've already talked to a couple of my neighbors on that, but to let them know that, you know, whatever we do, that we make sure that we don't take more than our share of water. Last year, water was short, and we watered the hayfield for the first, until we had the first crop, and then after that, we just shut it down because it was short, and so that is my intention, is not to, which I think is what I heard, is that was one of the main things that we were concerned about, and I totally get it. You know, we just want to be a part of the neighborhood, and and just share the water with whatever our rights are. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kevin Frost. And I'm at 433 Weber Heights, so just kind of up the road from this parcel. I grew up. just west of the parcel. My mom still lives there on 40 acres. And we share water out of Willow Creek. In this case, it's off of the Rock Ditch. And I agree with my thoughts on family transfer. Or just like Al mentioned, I think that family transfer is a great thing. It's so good for when we get older, we can pass along a piece of property to our kids. And I think it's a wonderful, wonderful thing. As Al pointed out, though, I think we just need to make sure that that is, in fact, the case. And just on the water issue, I'll just say one One thing is it seems like as we get more and more people in Ravalli County and we get more and more people that are subdividing and we just have more folks that are on the ditch, it just gets more and more complicated. I appreciate Mr. Schrock's mention of they're going to only use their share of the water. But as things progress, as in 10, 20, 30 years, things change. There's more people, and it just gets harder and harder to divide the water that's for the property. Some people... Some people are, you know, they use what is their share, and then others don't. And that's when it gets difficult. And we've had a water commissioner on rock ditch because of those issues. And anyway, that's all I have to say. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Alan Mackey, a neighboring rancher, Rock Ditch Water user also. As we have said before, we're not against legitimate family transfers. We're against them being used to circumvent the process. And the taxpayers and the neighbors end up picking up the tab for that because there's no pro rata fees collected.

The county taxpayers said no to whatever it was, $3 million road bond.

The county has lost millions of dollars in family transfer pro rata fees that would have been accrued had some of these family transfers gone through as subdivisions and been passed that way. And so the taxpayers are losing on that one as well as the neighbors when their water shares get cut and whatnot over time, especially in the case of a family transfer that is being used as a subdivision and then it gets sold to a new person down the line later.

How did the water shares get cut, Andy? Or Alan?

Well, Mr. Schrock's promise is that they're going to go easy on the water. But as soon as those lots are sold to somebody else, that promise may or may not exist. And that's why we were very concerned about things getting cut up.

And so I would like to- I'm just trying to figure out how there's water shares on whatever course it's coming from. How do water shares get cut through a family transfer or any other mechanism? Well, it-

My guess is that you're gonna keep one share of whatever share it was with that parcel, but you're gonna get, like in this case, it'll be split five ways, but there's no water irrigation master plan that you would have if you do a subdivision. Normally, you would have a water irrigation master plan to try to figure that out, but in this case, you don't figure that out. You just leave that to us in the future to figure out, and that's one of the concerns that we have. And so even if those shares, so the shares aren't going to change for water for a point of use on the land, but if you have a different owner on five different parcels, then they're going to have to coordinate how they use those shares because now if you have a fifth, you're only entitled to a fifth of that water for your particular parcel, so you're going to have to split it with the other four people and make sure that you all irrigate on different days. I would think that you would understand irrigation here.

I don't. What I hear, I think I hear, is that once land gets divided, then people become water pirates. Is that what you're saying?

No, that is not what I said. I said that once land gets divided, there is more users. to try to ration out that water. The water stays the same, but there is now more users to try to ration that out, and it becomes more difficult to do generally, because as you know, you have more people after the same resource. It doesn't mean that anybody's necessarily going to be a pirate or not. But if you have more people in a system, there is a better chance, the more people you get, there's a better chance of having a rotten apple. And those are the situations that make it extremely difficult for us and why we've had to pay money to have a water commissioner. And so in our situation, you're talking about adding five lots to, what is there, 18, 20 users on the rock ditch? So now you're going to add 20% more people to get along. It's just the reality of the situation for us. It's not Mr. Schrock's fault that we have that situation going forward. But that is the reality of the situation for us.

Does that? I mean, I can agree with that. The logistically, it makes sense. It's more difficult if you've got a share of water. It's logistically more difficult to manage or appropriate those five shares than it is one water user that you can manage. We agree with that. But does that mean that that person, because it's more logistically difficult for all the water users, does that mean that that's evasion? to divide that property.

No, but where you get into the evasion is that it says that subdivision evasion criteria, the use of this exemption is presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading these regulations if the MSPA, if the use of the family transfer exemption would cause significant impacts to the criteria, the seven criteria of subdivision review. And our argument is that we have had numerous subdivisions up there that have had negative effects and they have actually got either postponed or withdrawn, or right out denied. And I can list you probably five right off the top of my head.

So question, what I heard from the Sapphire Coalition is it's not okay there, but for your children, if you break off a couple acre pieces in the corner of your ranch and give to them, that's okay though. Because that's what this was intended for apparently by the legislature is Mr. Schrock does it, It's logistically more difficult for water. It's evasion because he's doing it for all these reasons. But what I heard from the Sapphire Coalition is if we're doing it for ranchers and farmers to keep their kids on the property, it's okay. But a developer to keep his kids in the valley is not necessarily okay because that's evasion. I'm trying to fit the pieces here because they're not really fitting together for me that it's okay for a farmer and rancher. Because logistically, it would probably be more difficult to buy parcels on that ranch and keep the kids on the ranch and do these things. Yeah, I mean, the law, I mean, I see where I'm going here, that the pieces aren't fitting.

Yeah, I guess the difference is the intent of the law was just that, to keep somebody on the parcel. Like in this situation, your last packet of information that I gave you in my letter specifically talks about two of Shrock's kids already have houses elsewhere that they own and live in. And maybe all the kids and Mr. Shrock and his wife all want to live on separate parcels there. But I'm just calling the spade a spade here. If you actually look, Mr. Shrock is a successful developer. And we don't believe that those five lots are going to be all in Schrock's name past two years from now, or his kid's name for that matter. And so the difference there is you're talking about changing ownership much more frequent than what would probably be done in a legitimate family transfer where people are really wanting to live on the same land together multiple generations.

So where did you come up with your intent statement? My intent? The intent of the law for the kids. And I think I heard it maybe from Al as well. Oh, so. The intent was to have the family members live on that parcel forevermore.

Oh, I don't know about Al's interpretation. My interpretation of the intent of the law is that the law has been around since I think it was the 1980s or something, early 80s. And it has been... pushed and prodded different ways at the Montana level, at the state level, and then also at the county level to allow more or less latitude, more or less latitude, but the one thing that has always stayed constant in it is that it said the intent is not to evade subdivision. And that has always stayed in the law from the 80s all the way through.

The intent I'm asking for is that, again, I think I've heard it from three different people testifying, the intent is that we can give it to our children and then they must reside there pretty much forever after that. When I read the law, it says two-year holding period by the beneficiary. So where is this? They have to...

So do you believe that it's meant to be as an expedited subdivision review?

No, what I'm asking, Alan, is where you stated the intent of the law was to have the family live there.

I never stated that. I did not state that, Mr. Chilcott. I don't believe that I stated that.

Okay, then what did you say?

I just said here that... The use of this exemption is presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading these regulations. If it looks like there would be a problem, if it was carried forward, if you looked at the project as a subdivision instead of a family transfer.

I'm not even debating that with you. We also feel the impact of the of pro rata, right? I mean, we all, and we've had conversations with some of our legislators about that very issue. My question was somebody, I'm pretty sure Al said something, and I thought you'd said something about the intent of the law regarding holding the gifted parcels.

I don't believe I ever talked about the intent of the law holding the gifted parcels, Mr. Kilcott. If I did, I don't know. I heard Al's comment on that.

Well, there was at least an implication of that through what you were saying because you said we don't believe that those parcels are going to be held in the Schrock name for a very long period of time. That's correct. Meaning or assuming that this was done to...

It's a fast track subdivision, correct.

Okay.

Yeah. And the county taxpayers lose on that. And the people that are coming into the community and buying those houses lose on it because now there's no water irrigation master plan. Now there's no possibly a public park or a trail or better access or et cetera, et cetera, that normally you would go through the review process to find weaknesses in the development.

I'm not arguing the merits because I agree with it. I think there should be at least the ability to condition family transfers to some level. Making sure there's legal physical access, making sure there's water there. Pro rata would be a good thing. At least minimal review on the impacts and being able to put some minor conditions on there.

And that's why I think that in... I mean, in the laws that we have right now, because I'm not trying to remake laws here or even or even interpret all of the everybody's thoughts behind the laws over the last decades. But what I am saying is that in the laws right now, it says that presumed to have been adopted, that the county would presume that it's been adopted for evading. If there's any inclination that the seven criteria could be have it could could possibly deny the subdivision. And my argument is there's a strong case for that because number one, we've talked about some of the criteria and number two, you can see from past history of subdivisions up in that area getting denied on some of those very, very criteria. And so it'll actually allows the county as I discussed in my last letter and that Supreme Court case from 1993 talking about the the ability that the county has, it actually allows the county to, if there's a presumption, then that means that a rebuttable presumption exists. And it says if a rebuttable presumption exists, then the county can ask the applicant to prove that it's not being used for evasion. And all we're asking for is for you county commissioners to Ask the applicant to prove that it's not being used for evasion because a rebuttable presumption exists that it might be. What would you consider proof of that?

Sort of just asking the applicant, are you doing this for the purpose of evading?

That's an extremely good question. I do not know the answer to that. But now you see the position that we're in by trying to prove that it exists. isn't evasion, or that it is evasion, it's the same as proving that it isn't evasion.

Well, I think that's where you have to go back to the law that guides and governs this, and what's the intent of the legislature, and you look at it, and I guess I disagree that the legislature was doing it for the purposes of keeping farm and ranch kids on the ranch. I mean, it makes sense that that's why they would do it, but when you look at Skip brought up Senator Ellsworth, but now we're allowed to do these in plotted subdivisions, and the hold period lessens, so it looks less and less like an ability to keep kids on the farm or the ranch or in the community, and more like an opportunity to fast-track development.

Yes, and I don't disagree with that at all.

Or to help the kids financially. Or to help the kids financially.

I don't disagree with that. I personally don't disagree with that at all. But what I am saying through all of this is that the family transfer law from the 80s all the way through, it's got changed over the years, different ways to... either tighten it up or loosen it up. And in this case, in recent years, it got loosened up. But through that all the last stage that has always said that this is not to evade subdivision review. This is not this is not supposed to be a fast track to get out of subdivision review. It's a fast track to carve out a lot for your kids or whatever, whether you're a farmer or a landowner or live in a subdivision. Now, in this case, it's still a fast track for that, and I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just saying that if it looks like it could be evasion, the county has the right to say a rebuttable presumption exists. Now you show me that it's not evasion. And I think the county should step up and do that because you are losing millions of dollars in tax revenue in the form of not collecting pro rata. I mean, it was just like the Sapphire Heights subdivision that we fought. They were going to pay $15,000 to $17,000 or $20,000 an acre. I mean, not an acre per lot. So five lots on 20,000, there's 100,000. Bam, gone. Didn't even collect it. That's going to come out of our coffers that everybody's talking about, well, we don't have enough money. We don't have enough tax money. Well, part of it is that, and you actually have in your law, it says in the state law and in the county law, it says that you can look at it as a rebuttal for presumption and then ask the applicant to Explain why it isn't.

I think the legislature, I think the last session created, directed the Attorney General's Office to create an affidavit, which I think covers what you're saying. That they sign a document that says, I'm not evading, basically. I mean, it's a much longer document, a whole lot more words, but it was written by attorneys. Nothing? And so... That's there, but this was done prior to that implementation. So just a question. If an applicant that was done prior to that law was created signed that, would that satisfy you or the coalition's concern about the presumption?

I think that we proved there's a presumption, that there's a rebuttable presumption in the case that water rights are a real issue for our area. And anytime land gets divided, it is an issue. You've heard it over and over and over again that it is an issue. And if it's an issue, that means that if you looked at that family transfer as a subdivision, and said, OK, here's a five lot subdivision, how would the effects on ag water users be addressed in this? Is this a possibility that this subdivision could get denied? Because if it is a possibility that that subdivision could get denied that way, just a possibility, not that it would or wouldn't, just a possibility. If there's a fragment of truth in that that subdivision could have a hard time going through if all the neighbors are fighting about their water, then that's a rebuttable presumption that now the county needs to ask the applicant to prove that it's legitimate. And I would be happy to listen to Mr. Schrock prove that it's legitimate. We are not against legitimate family transfers.

Allen, you referenced rebuttable presumption. presumption in state law. Where is that at? You might have to give me just a second to find it here. I understand it's in the county regs.

Alan mentioned the county and the state regs, so I was wondering where.

Give me just a minute here in a minute. And it is in our own county regulations, too, and we have to follow those in state law, of course. So Montana code annotated part two miscellaneous exemptions. unless the method of disposition. So where are you at, 76? 76.3.2. 76.3.207. 207, OK. Divisions or aggregation of land exempted from review. Unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading these chapters, the following divisions can blah, blah, blah. So then part four. of that same chapter, the governing body, A, shall examine a division or aggregation of land to determine whether or not the requirements of this chapter apply to the division of aggregation. And then part five. the applicant setting forth the applicant's intentions, including that the proposed use of an exemption is not for the purpose of evading this chapter. So it still talks about looking for evasion. I guess the rebuttable presumption for eviction is straight out of the counties. Yeah, because I didn't see that in state law.

In fact, state law goes as far as to say you can't require any conditions on a family transfer, which I think we understand that, but That doesn't mean that judging, judging whether or not it's evasion. So 20, this was in 2025. The, was there an affidavit with this? Was this law employee? Cause I know this changed last legislative session.

No, there's no affidavit. This one that changed in 2025, but the attorney general's office didn't produce it until I think August of 2025 or September is later.

We just believe that you have a right to question it and say that it could be evasion. And if that's the case, then you have the right to have the applicant prove to you that it's not. And I don't think that's too much to ask from the citizens of Ravalli County, especially when they're footing the tax bill on it. And might I add, even in that court case that I gave you in the Supreme Court case, which was just about very similar stuff, that talks a whole bunch about rebuttal or presumption in there and the ability of local governments that are voted in and out by their voters to be able to take a broad latitude to look at some of these things, whereas appointed people aren't allowed that broad latitude because the appointments aren't directly voted in and out by the people. And that explains that very much in there of the constitutionality of all of that and that the beneficial purpose is to be liberally construed when it comes to county commissioners making a decision. And that was all in the Supreme Court case of State of Montana versus Fuller et al. And you guys have a copy of that. And it says right there, it says, governing bodies have the power and duty to evaluate and determine from all of the circumstances. And it talks about all the same kind of stuff we're talking about. And that was a Supreme Court case. That's all I'm saying is that you have the ability to do something. I know it's an awkward position to be in, and it's something new, but you do have the ability to question these. And I think it's a fair question when you look at the millions of dollars that the county has given up on pro rata fees and you brought a levy to the voters asking for money for roads. It's a fair thing to question. And you're in the unenviable position to have to do that, but it is fair for the citizens of Ravalli County. And I'm not judging one way on a family transfer or not, because I don't know all of the criteria in every one. But I'm saying there's the ability to look a little closer. And this having public meetings is the very first step in this. Very first step in this. And it took a Supreme Court case to get there. But that's the very first step in this is exposing some of this. Because we know what's been going on. Not with everybody, but plenty of times. And I can give you more examples if you would like more examples of lots that have sold back to the original owners to get sold and whatnot. I we had a public information request from the county and I would also I would also Highly encourage you to ask the county to look up some of their own data Because they gave they gave us data when we asked for it as to what family transfers have happened in recent decades and Rob can send that to you just as easy as you could send it to me and it's in I It's in a little bit jumbled form. You've got to really sort through it. But you start sorting, and your eyes will pop open. It's been going on a long time. And we're not ignorant to it anymore. And you have the ability to do something about it within the parameters of the state law and our own law. And we would just appreciate that you take that time to look seriously at it.

Are you finished? Yes. All right. Thank you. Anybody else?

Bradley Paulson, 606 Anchor Drive, Corvallis, Montana. I think it only fair to say that I've known Willie Schrock since we moved here 16 years ago and have had a few dealings with him and have found him to be honorable and reputable in his dealings as far as my interface with him. One last thing is the water issue still is a huge issue. Groundwater, potable water, and irrigation water wells are going dry up there because of new developments, and they have been for a number of years. We will and our neighbors will be directly affected by wells drilled on this property. They drill three, four, five more wells. That's more straws in the aquifer pulling out water that we don't have. It's very, very limited, as we all know. With irrigation water, I know representatives and managers of both BRID and Daily Ditches, the biggest problem they have had, and they'll all say it, is these family transfers. It's causing all kinds of problems. They're taking water rights where people are used to taking turns in their irrigating. And they split it up into four, five, 10 lots. Now all of a sudden, every owner on that lot wants his water, and he wants it now. And if he can't get it from the ditch, he's going to pull it from the ground. And we can't afford that. They've got to use the irrigation water. We can't afford to be using groundwater for irrigation purposes. And I can tell you, this is going to be a problem. So for what it's worth, there's a whole lot of issues at stake here. And anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. CHRIS RODGERS, JR.: Thanks, Brent. Anyone else?

I may. Skip Chisholm, Hamilton. I'd like to make a general observation of this meeting for everybody's good. As I've said many times at many meetings, I feel blessed that I live in Ravalli County when I come to meetings like this. that are so well done and handled and information on both sides of the coin revealed, we have in the last 45 or 50 years that I've observed meetings here, I pray that 10 years from now, we can still be solving problems like this in this room because Ravalli County is still not at a size where we can't accommodate this kind of county business right here. This is an example of a meeting where Our commissioners actually represent all three parts of our government, legislative, executive, and then judicial. And it's wonderful that I just learned a whole lot listening to Alan. I remember when Willie had a much smaller construction business, and I was teaching some of his people about alternative energy things. And that was in the 90s. You probably don't remember that. And so I just feel like I'm so happy that I live in a place where we have meetings like this, because I've been in three different county meetings, not here, but in two other counties. And it's not handled this way, where the examination happens and we get a chance to come up and have a conversation in public with our commissioners. And I just feel so good that I live here. where I know that you three men will come to a good decision by the time this is all over. And I just wanted to point that out. Thank God you live in Ravalli County, Montana. We're going to crunch this down and get the right answer. And please, let's all be proactive about the tipping points that are going on in this county so that 10 years from now, we're glad we made the decisions we made. Thank you.

Anyone else? Yes.

I did find the other chapter for Mr. Burroughs.

Please come to the microphone.

Allen Mackey. I did find the other chapter for Mr. Burroughs. I mean, it's in the same chapter, but it's part P. And it says, establish criteria that the governing body or reviewing authority will use to determine whether a proposed method of disposition using the exemptions provided in blah, blah, blah is an attempt to evade the requirements of this chapter. The regulations must provide for an appeals process for the governing body if the reviewing authority is not the governing body.

Where are you at right now?

77. And that basically references back to our own county regulations, which we have the state says you're allowed to follow your own county regulations. So it's 7635504P, as in pig. Thanks, Tom. Thank you.

Anyone else? OK, we will close public comment for now.

I got a few thoughts. Okay, go ahead. If we had a representative sitting in the room, we could maybe get some clarification on family. I think the legislature has to take this on. I think they need to give a little better guidance on this because right now for us to sit and judge evasion and even have this evasion criteria, I don't think works. I think they need to clarify their intent Because there's a lot of people, and you've heard it, Representative, a lot of people guessing as to the intent of why the family transfer exists. Is it for farm and ranch kids? Is it for kids in general just to live on the property? Or is it an ability for a family to break off a couple of pieces and create a college fund for their kids if they hold it for two years, sell it, and then send their kids to college? So I've never seen the intent of why this was created, but it'd be nice to clarify that.

Yeah. Terry Nelson, for the record. I've watched this, as has been testified here before, go back and forth over the decades as far as where it is, and it all centered on that. As long as it's these different exemptions, family transfers, relocations, ag parcels, everything, court orders, mortgage surveys, as long as it's not intended to evade this chapter, subdivision chapter, what does e-Bayesian mean? And I don't know what the original intent of the family transfers is, but the fact that it's very clear in statute that it's parents, spouse, and children, I don't think intends solely that somebody build and live on there or they're encouraging divorce to be able to give it to their spouse and I don't think that would be legislative intent the legislature I believe tried in the last session and it's one that I all I saw and heard was on the floor of the house but that was the one that puts in this affidavit and that's section 5 of what Mr. Mackey had referred to and it says the Attorney General shall prepare a form affidavit to be used by the governing body to conduct the examination required by this section the application used by the governing body Under subsection 4 must be accompanied by an affidavit from the applicant stating the applicants saving for the applicants intentions including that the proposal is or a proposed use of an exemption is not for the purpose of evading this chapter. The governing body may not force an applicant to appear before the governing body during the examination period. What was discussed on the floor during this bill was that we have this fuzzy law that every county is doing totally different and we should have some uniformity to it and that This affidavit was the thing to bring it together and to say, you sign the affidavit that the attorney general, not each county's making up, so it's uniform. That should take care of that evasion criteria. And then if the person violates that, then you as a body can go after them because they've signed a sworn affidavit. Here's what I'm doing with this. Here's the criteria and here's what I'm doing. That was what was proposed as the change to law so that we wouldn't have all this. Well, what did they really mean? What was the intention?

Just out of curiosity, so it talks about for evasion and this, uh, I forgot what they call it. It's basically the $10,000 civil pen, the exclusive remedy for evasion being $10,000 or 10% of the 10% of the sales price. Uh, If you can prove through documented evidence, and documented evidence, so you defined documents, photographs, video, microfilm, digital data, affidavits. I'm just wondering, when you guys talked about that or when that came up, what were they expecting would come up? Somebody send an email like, can't believe those idiots approved our family transfer because we were doing, even though we signed the affidavit, we were doing it for the purposes of evading, like What would you see as documentable evidence that somebody evaded?

I've got a realtor on board already pre-marketing it. I've got a lease agreement with... Commissioner Chilcott for two years and at the end of it, then he'll purchase it something like that Everybody else brought you and I figured I would do you have a lease agreement with? On the record I do not Yeah, so I you know, I think some sort of the the problem that I see is

is the remainder is free and can be marketed immediately. So you could engage the realtor to sell that remainder as you're doing this process. On the remainder only? On the remainder only. Yes. And in my opinion, the remainder should have the same criteria as far as years as the gifted. Once this process is completed, this privilege to do a family transfer. And it's a privilege. And my greatest fear is it's going to be abused to death. At some point, the legislators are going to throw up their hands and say, this is something that we can't handle. We're just going to stop it. And then we all lose, everybody.

CHRIS RODGERS, JR.: Yeah. That would be something to bring to your legislator. Thank you for bringing that to me. And I know that we have. proposed Chapter 11 rule changes and one of the things Ravalli's looking at is a preliminary hold on the property before you can even think of doing a family transfer. And that certainly is something I think we'll look at going into legislature, maybe doing something like that.

And Representative Nelson brought up an interesting point that we've talked about here. If the legislative intent was not for a financial mechanism on these family transfers, why the heck would it allow a husband to transfer to a wife? Or vice versa. Or vice versa. Like, that's the piece that we, I mean, we talk about what we all kind of envision as the family transfer, which is son and daughter, break them off a piece and allow them to live on the property. But why would the, if it wasn't for a financial tool, why would you be able to give, I can give my wife a piece, we can buy another piece of property, she can give me a piece. We've essentially just done two, two lost subdivisions between us. If that's not the intent, why would that ever happen unless Representative said, unless we're encouraging husbands and wives to live on separate parcels, which is just kind of strange. I don't see another rationale for it other than that. A financial tool for a husband and a wife to at least do possibly two lot subdivisions in a county by one transfer one way and one the other and creating at least those two parcels.

I don't think it the financial benefit of the beneficiary children either. I think that doing a family transfer to a child at the age of eight or 18, it doesn't really matter, and they want to hold it for whatever the holding period happens to be in the jurisdiction they reside, and they can liquidate or sell that parcel to fund a new home, fund education, whatever. I believe that was part of the intent, but like Alan said, can't really prove it. It may have come up in the discussion, but the intent is vague enough that I think we can interpret it different ways. But I do believe that that was part of the intent, was financial, whether it's a spouse, even the beneficiary children, to be able to get a step into life.

What I think is wrong is that this could potentially happen in all 56 counties. That's another loophole that probably needs... I mean, if you're going to use an exemption to establish your family homestead or to send your kids to college, it doesn't seem like you should be able to do this in Ravalli County, then Missoula County, then Beaverhead, and just kind of keep leapfrogging around to buy the next piece of property. Yeah. If you wanna do that, go through a subdivision process in that jurisdiction, but as far as the exemption goes, it really seems like it should be a one and done in the state of Montana, I think.

And that could be a change that also we could do, but having been surveying for probably almost as old as Greg is. That's old. I have seen an awful lot of battles on family transfers And that is not one that I have ever even seen. I can't point to an instance. Now, of course, I mean, I'm 99%. All surveying I do is in Ravalli County. But I think if that was an issue or becoming an issue, that we would have seen something with that. It's a quirk in the law, but I don't know that it's.

But it would be nice to get in front of it before it becomes a problem. I mean, what do you do? one family transfer per citizen or two, I don't, you guys sort that out, but limit it and not create a development tool statewide. Because subdivision is onerous and very, very expensive to go through. And it does force people to consider other alternatives to trying to give legacy land to their families.

family members. And the cost and time of subdivision I think has contributed greatly to the cost and price of housing, which as we know is probably also one of the main issues we have in Montana now is we don't have the wages that pay for somebody to be able to get a starter home around here. And so we're seeing all of our kids going elsewhere. Any other questions?

Thank you, Representative. Thank you. I will reopen for you.

Go ahead. Hey, Andy, I'm going to refer to you as Alan since I referred to Alan as Andy.

That's fine, Commissioner Chilcott. And I appreciate you still talking to me after me getting up here what I said the first time. So I'm Andy Mackey, and I think it's a matter of degree. I mean, I really do. I think you're just weighing these things. And a lot of times we're dealing in gray and it's not black and white. But at some point it's kind of like, does this look like a subdivision or does this look like a family transfer? So I think if Willie bought the place and then he gave a lot to Willie Wiley. Is it Wiley? And Gina.

Yeah, you got my daughter's written.

Okay. I'll just leave you out of it too, Willie. But it's kind of a matter of degree. Does this look like a subdivision or does it look like here we're kind of doing a family transfer? What would it look like?

I'm trying to follow you, but I'm not sure when you say it. Does this look like a subdivision or a family transfer?

If you look at the plot and you go, well, that looks like a subdivision. And if you look at the plot and you go, well, that looks like There's a lot off here. I mean, I think you can look at that and there are two different things.

I mean, a reasonable person. What's the difference at the end of the day, whether it visually on a plot map looks one way or another? What's the difference at the end of the day?

Well, I guess the main difference is, is this going to have a major impact on on the neighbors and the subdivision criteria. So you could envision a lot of circumstances where you even have a family transfer in a plotted subdivision where there's not a lot of impact there. But when you start going into, when it starts becoming more like a subdivision and you start having impacts, then that's where that whole... Would you do me a favor?

And you don't have to by any stretch, but there's a chalkboard behind you. Can you draw me what... family transfer looks like versus what a subdivision looks like. And which one would that be?

Okay. That's the difference.

Let's just talk about that. Yeah, I mean, the other one had, I don't know, eight parcels on it, right? And this one has two. So what if this one has six kids?

So what I'm hearing between the brothers here is

A small parcel created looks like a family transfer, but a larger parcel created looks like a subdivision.

I'm just trying to understand it visually. There's not ever going to be a set answer on that. I don't think there can be a set answer. I think you have to look at each. Generally, you've got the two pictures there. One's a subdivision. You could even call the other one a minor subdivision. I guess you almost, it's a matter of degree. And so there's always going to be a judgment call there. I don't think you're going to get away from that. In some cases, it's clear cut. Yeah, you guys were in a tough spot trying to decide all this stuff. I'll go with that.

I mean, I look at your first one, you said it looks like a subdivision, right? Now, as a parent, and we have seven children, Oh, and a spouse. So there you go. There's your nine lots. And one could be transferred immediately, right? But the other ones have to be held for whatever the holding period is in statute and local regulation. But I don't think regulation has latitude anymore. I think it's the two years period. But I don't know about you and how many kids you have, but if I gave one child five acres and one child one acre, there'd be some interesting conversation at the Easter dinner table, right? So that first one that you drew, if I did a family transfer and my family would look fairly similar to that, they'd all get equal sizes of ground so everybody was treated equally. And that's, I mean, again, I'm just trying to visualize it because it sounds like you have a vision in your head of what a subdivision looks like versus what a family transfer looked like. That's what I was trying to get around to. And it's not critical, Andy. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. So I see where you're coming from.

So I think part of it is you get back to how does the creation of those lots, does it impact, could the creation of those lots be construed as a subdivision where it would get where it would have a hard time passing the seven criteria. I guess you get back to that. And I guess if you start doing that, where it impacts people's water rights and wells start going dry, and we're starting to see this, and where you start, that's where each of these situations is going to be unique. And it's... And it does end up kind of being a judgment call. Or there's an opportunity, I should say, for each situation to be unique. But as that starts to look more and more like an actual subdivision that you guys see on a daily basis, I think you start to... You start to have to have a little bit higher degree of scrutiny on this and go, whoa, what's going on here?

Where? I mean, for me, on your first one, if they put a single road in with small little driveways to that road, I would see that as probably a better maintained road, right? And I'd see... a better maintained road may actually produce less fugitive dust particulate if they're all using it, where if you have a bunch of little ones, you're going to have longer driveways to get to wherever their main road is. I'm just really trying to wrap my head around what you're saying about the difference between what one looks like and what the other one looks like.

How much impact, I guess they're both subdivision. I mean, if that subdivision, if the creation of those lots, if you're creating them in such a way that it's gonna impact the seven criteria and that could actually be denied, then that's where you start going Well, maybe we're not going to allow this one.

But that that you drew up on the board, because it doesn't look like subdivision, would you argue that has a lot less impact if you do six little lots along the bottom with exempt wells and septic systems and fencing around that? And possibly a proportionate share of the irrigation rights because they want little one acre. Let's just say that's a 200 acre parcel right there you drew. Each one of those is what we gave little two acre lots to all of our family members. They're each going to have a septic system. They're each going to have an exempt well. And we want to give them a little bit of a proportionate share of the water right so they can irrigate their lawn and have a nice lawn. The Sapphire Coalition is OK with that, is what I heard. But they're not OK with a big split, with a road down the middle and a cul-de-sac.

I'm saying it's a case-by-case basis. I'm just saying philosophically, I guess my personal opinion, I'm not even going to speak for the Sapphire Coalition because it's just me up here talking personally. We have to have a vote on this and talk about it. You know, generally speaking, I would say you carve off a few lots at the side. That's going to have less impact than creating all these equal things.

Less impact to what? That's a generalized statement.

That's what I'm saying is each situation is going to be unique.

What if each one of those had an exempt well in an area where neighbor's wells are going dry and we – punch in those six little lots. Doesn't look like a subdivision because they're down in the corner.

And that's what I'm saying is then you got to, that's what I'm saying is in that situation, you got to go, well, this, maybe we don't allow this because you got, it's going to, wells are going to dry up. You see where we're going with this? Otherwise you go, okay, well, we'll just don't worry about the wells. We'll just let them, we'll just let them dry up. Can I run down a rabbit trail with you real quick? Sure.

So, Take either one of your parcels that's being lodge created on it, either via family transfer or subdivision. That parcel has an exempt well right. Would you agree with that? Has one exempt well, 35 gallons per minute, 10 acre feet, that parcel?

I...

I don't I'm not I'm not I I understood the exempt wells are a huge issue right but I'm just saying this just as when we're talking impact to neighboring wells so let's just call it 20 and you're gonna give your four kids each a five-acre lot or five-acre lot or three-acre lot you're gonna return whatever but that that 20 acres you started with had as an exempt well right to one well 10 acre feet 35 gallons a minute it has today next week they do a family transfer on it they still have divided up now among however many lots they created 10 acre feet 35 gallons a minute in total so how is that a greater or lesser impact than a subdivision on the well

So creating that new law.

That's a practical or a theoretical situation. Practically, unless you're doing something with that, most households aren't going to use that 10-acre feet, 35 gallons a minute. But they have the right to it, though. They have the right, the theoretical right, but practically. I think it's a legal right. Well, you can call it legal or theoretical. Whatever you want. They ain't pumping 10 acre feet, 35 gallons a minute out of that well. I mean, that's the practical side of it. There is a practical likelihood that two exempt wells are going to pump more water out of the ground now legal right no you've just divided it up but practically you're probably going to pump more water out of three residential wells than you are one residential well even if the parcel is bigger um but but all i'm saying is the potential is there the potential is there i'll let you talk ellen

Yeah. I mean, just generally speaking, subdivisions and wells have impacts. I mean, so you drill more wells, and you have impacts. So I was talking to the attorney for the Farm Bureau the other day. And Belgrade has, I don't know how many wells they have for the city of Belgrade, but they just had one of their major wells go dry, just out of the blue. And whether it's a family transfer, whether it's subdivision, the more wells that go in, the more impact it's going to have. And so I'm not an expert in each and every law. I'm saying that at some point, I guess we're up here asking for common sense. We're asking for common sense is what we're asking. Yeah, common sense. Thanks, Andy. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.

Alan?

I just wanted to help answer Andy's question. in our own regulations for a valley county which the state allows you to have your own regulations in our own regulation and encourages you and tells you that you need to in our own regulations part two of family transfer says subdivision evasion criteria the use of this exemption is presumed presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading these regulations and the montana subdivision and platting act if there's a give back and whatever, or part B, the use of the family transfer exemption would cause significant impacts to the seven criteria. That's all we're asking is look that it could cause significant impacts to the seven criteria, now let's look closer at it. And that was Andy's point as to everyone is different, but how does the impacts to the seven criteria look? And then later on, as I explained before, the law also allows you to put the burden of the proof back on the developer and say, prove to me that this isn't the case, that we have a rebuttable presumption. And that's all legal to do.

Al Babel? Corvallis?

Oh, no, Al. No, no.

Don't erase those names. This recommends maybe 1% or 0.5%. So when you look at 35 gallons a minute allowable rate of water, the average family in this country, as per the 2020 census, is 2.5 kids per family. Now, Greg is three times that. But the average is 2.5. GREG LOVEJOYSKIYSKIYSKIYSKIYSKIYSKIYSKIYSKIY is 2.5 kids. So if we did a family transfer, for my understanding of the intention of it, is to give kids a hand up because land is expensive, the 2.5 kids that might get a piece of property of that ranch or farm isn't going to use 35 gallons a minute. The average, according to the latest stats that most well companies put out is that the average person uses approximately 75 gallons of water a day. So in a family of 4.5 people, that's 375 gallons a day. So a 35 gallon a minute well puts out 2,100 gallons an hour if you suck it that hard. So if we're looking at a subdivision, whether it's the one we're talking about today or many others, They're using 100% of the property. The intent of that, in my opinion, and my understanding is when I read a family transfer, is a portion of the land is used as a family transfer, not 100% of it. That's the difference between a subdivision and a family transfer, in my opinion. And I'm not an attorney, so I can't break it down.

Where do you come up with that, though? How you got there that it's 100% not?

Well, if we break 20 acres up into five or six equal parcels, that's 100% of it's used as a subdivision. Whereas this is maybe 0.5% of the whole piece of ground.

I get what that part, but where do you, I'm just trying to come up where anywhere in law did you interpret that there was a proportionality to the family transfer on a parcel?

Oh, no, that's just my interpretation. Here we have 100% use as building lots. Here we have a small percentage. There's nothing in the law that says that. This is just a graphic to show that this is 100% use as family dwellings. This is a small percentage.

But would you agree or would you disagree that each of those parcels would have theoretically a building envelope on them, whether they were one acre or 20 acre parcels, they'd still have one, a building envelope where they'd have a house, maybe a garage or a barn, but they, they generally have a certain fragment of that land that would be used as a building parcel, a residential parcel. So whether they're spread out over that, the big one or the small one, the, the, land covered with a building and used for residential purposes, wouldn't it be the same?

Well, technically, I guess it would be the same. But when you look at the average family in this country as 2.5 kids, this ranch might only have 2.5 kids or two kids. We don't have families of 12 or 15 to create a farm workforce like we did 100 years ago. of resources. This, the irrigation would come off of the farm. They would have a well, and really, even if they had put five one-acre lots across the bottom, when you look at what one well is capable of legally producing, they could put one well down and four kids could share the same well. So we're looking at a whole different perspective as to the resources that are going to be used. This is utilizing 100 where a true family transfer might only be using a small percentage of it. So that's my two cents worth on that.

Thank you. That logic does make sense, Al. The problem is that the legislature looks like they actually contemplated that and discussed that in 207 where they talk about divisions or aggregation of tract of record of any size regardless of the resulting size of lots created. So it sounds like they actually contemplated that. It really doesn't matter whether you're doing this for some little farmhouses or whether you want to take 100 acres and whack it into

Well, that's why I said that was my interpretation.

Yeah, which makes sense from just a logical standpoint of parent parcel, break the kids off some little parcels so they can afford to have an affordable house and keep the remainder. But it looks like they actually contemplated that and wrote that in there that it doesn't matter if you break it into those little lots or whether you whack it into proportionally equal lots.

Skip Chisholm Hamilton. Am I permitted to ask our representative for me, can I ask you a question to ask him? Something simple about legislative process? Because in this upcoming session, which starts in January, which Mr. Nelson will probably be at, as he filled the vacancy with an appointment to be representative from 87, now he'll be elected again. to go back to Helena. Could he, knowing all of this nebula that we've just been through, learned a whole lot of things about both sides of the coin and clear up some of the ambiguity, I'm going to use that word, of state law? Could he be part of a team of legislators that could address these points? This is a wonderful meeting for legislators to go back and look at so they can see the things that are the questions that need tightening up or straightening out or made more clear. Because we have, especially with his background here in this county, encountering all of these things over decades, this county could set an example of how to straighten this out so the rest of the state, even in previous conversations in this room, maybe all be able to be on the same plane and not be so complicated and so mysterious. And like Ravalli County's done in the past, maybe that team, a group of communication between our commissioners and our legislators from this county could, like I said, set an example that'll But the water policy committees in session right now in the interim and watching those is really amazing to see the detail they have to go through. And I've also watched interim committees that Mr. Nelson himself is on, especially Native American Affairs, and they get some problems solved. So I know this guy and a few others know how to solve problems. Please encourage our representatives and senators that are from Ravalli County Maybe be the team that solves this problem and set another example from Ravalli County. Thank you, Scott.

Okay. Anything from either one of my constituents?

Was there anything in this approval that the applicant had to sign to say, or is there anywhere in there that says that this wasn't for the... purposes of evading subdivision?

I'll find that. No, not that I'm aware of. There is an application that the county can ask, but the county has

Keyboard's gone.

I'll find it for you, Jeff.

Yes, please. Where is that?

The county has been omitting this part for years.

It's not a requirement.

It's a may or whatever. There we go.

Yeah, so there's number five is prior use of exemptions, conflict of interest statement. And then there's this section under here. Is that what Alan just gave me?

Okay, what we have here is a family transfer that's been done and approved administratively that followed the law as we understood it at that time. And so where do we go now?

So I prepared a staff report. taking into account the comments. So we heard the comments from the complaint. And then I went through each one of those criteria and made findings. And you guys can go through them and change them, decide what you want to do. And then at the end, there's a section basically on subdivision evasion. We had a complaint. alleging evasion, we get complaints for floodplain violations and other things, and it would be whether or not you guys would want to find it a valid complaint, follow through with it, or find it not a valid complaint. That's where we're at.

Thank you. Yep.

I don't think we can compel them. Ms. Schrock, would you sign the affidavit as it stands today under the new law saying that this wasn't for the purposes of evasion? Would you sign that? I don't know if you've ever seen it, but it's pretty simple and basically just says you're not doing this for the purposes of evasion. Would you sign that? Absolutely. I don't think we can condition that as well. Obviously we can't because it says we can't, but I mean, I appreciate you being here. didn't have to be here and state law i think specifically says that we can't tell you or direct you to be here and i think that shows some of the sincerity that you were willing to come here and face your neighbors and and say i'm willing to work with you on the water rights issue so it would have been really easy for him and i appreciate buzz getting up and saying his interactions with him You found that he's had integrity and honesty, and I think that you being here today supports that, and I appreciate it. Appreciate the offer of working with your neighbors to resolve some of those issues that were brought up. To me, I think it would make sense. If you were willing to, I think it would take some of the heat because I don't know that the application that I saw ever really answered that question of was this for the purposes of evading. And I think signing that affidavit may give a little more credibility, the fact that it wasn't for evasion. But again, can't compel you to do that. Yeah.

Yeah, again, William Shrock. I'm at 395 Bedrock in Corvallis. You know, I guess I'm a little taken back. I just felt like I'm just living the American dream with my family, and I realized there's just a lot of things that affect the community that I was a little bit oblivious to. You know, I guess it kind of hurts me that We couldn't have met as a neighborhood when we were doing this and just say, hey, we have concerns about the water issue. And I didn't meet with Buzz. And so I'm not quite sure am I evasive or moral. But my intention was never to not be legit with the neighborhood. I told one of the other neighbors, I think it was Andy on the phone, that, hey, talk to me. I wanted to talk. I've been thinking about the irrigation. Because it's a family transfer, I realized that we didn't have to go through that portion of it to have an irrigation plan. I'm not a big-time developer. I you know, like to provide jobs and live in this community. And I think part of what I do is trying to, you know, develop some properties so that we can build some more houses. But I'm open to up there, you know. I mean, I know that sometimes people say, well, their well's dried up. And I have no idea how deep the wells are, but sometimes the wells are 30 foot deep. I know that's been a fact in some areas. They just need to drill deeper. I drilled a well on a lot that I bought on Summerdale years ago. And the day I drilled the well, my neighbor across the road, probably 500 feet away's well went dry. And then she called me that night and said, did you drill a well today? And I said, I did. She says, my well went dry today. I had 10 gallon water. I mean, how do you know that kind of stuff? It's just part of it. I'm just offering myself up to my neighborhood like if you want to get together and have an apple pie and talk this over. I'm all about that. That's usually what happens when you come to a new neighborhood. You're supposed to have an apple pie brought to you. I didn't get an apple pie. And I'm going to be fine. I've been through this before, you know, and I'd like to just say that I want to just be a part of the community and Thank you. Thank you for coming.

Are you looking for, we've got the evasion conclusion, are you trying to put together findings of fact to support wherever we get, or what was? We've got them in here, I think.

I have them all in here. So hold us, buzz through this real quick. So there's the applicable regulations for evasion review. This is just verbatim out of the subdivision regulations. We did note the Supreme Court opinion on the public notice. So starting with chapter 11-1.a, again, this is verbatim, says the planning department of the BCC. When determining whether exemption described below is claimed for the purpose of evading the MSPA, we shall consider all of the surrounding circumstances, including these three things. configuration of tracks, any pattern of exempt transaction, and then the specific evasion criteria. So the way that I structured this was under findings of fact for 11-1.a following the public comment. I have five findings for the configuration of tracks.

Again, William Schrock. So there is a ruling about family transfer And I felt like I was just following that rule that was put in place. Is that clear? Like it's an opportunity for a father to buy a piece of property and decide that he wants to deed them to his kids. That was my intentions to use the family transfer instead of going through subdivision because I felt like it was a legal entity. You follow what I'm saying? I mean, I could have said, no, I'm not going to do that and do a subdivision instead. But I was using the law that was in place to do the family transfer. That was my thinking on it. Is that clear?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, was it for the purpose of evading subdivision?

No, I wouldn't do a family transfer to give it to my kids. So no, it was not evading it. The advice I was getting was that it's a legal way to do a transfer in Ravalli County. And I have a child up there living there that loves to live there. So to me, I guess the proof is in and just being able to see what's going on. Thank you.

I concur. I don't know if you want to take any more. No, not at this point. Okay.

Did you concur with finding effect 1A through E?

I concur with finding effect 1A.

Okay then second one is any pattern of exempt transactions that will result in the equivalent of a subdivision without local government review and What pattern could be considered subsequent exemption transactions like many applications? So I laid out the the history of exemptions on this property and There was a relocation of common boundaries in 2003. That was the last time, and then William Schrock acquired it in 2024 and has completed one family transfer.

I concur. I concur. Okay.

So then the next one is there's a specific evasion criteria, and one of these we've talked about at length in our regulation. So they're under Chapter 11-4.C. which following public comment, the use of the exemptions presumed to be, and this is from our regs, like Alan has stated. The first one is the use of the family gift or sale exemption is proposed to gift a portion of a tract from previously created family transfer back to the original grantor. So that would be dad gifts to son, and then that portion the son get received carves a piece off of that and gives it back to the dad and that did not occur in this proposal the use of this family transfer did not propose to give a portion of a track from a previously created family transfer back to the original grantor and what would happen if you saw that that would just we would trigger the application process we would we would say you don't meet the criteria and send them a letter and we we've had instances of that Okay, so now we get into the not-so-black-and-white one. The use of the family transfer exemption would cause significant impacts to the criteria listed in 3.9, that's a typo, it's been pointed out many times, et cetera, of these regulations that would likely lead to imposition of significant conditions of approval or denial or equivalent, that should say of, sorry. I think of the equivalent preliminary plot application. So if we're given a preliminary plot application, would there be significant conditions of approval or denial imposed on it? That's what this is asking for us to look at. So I'll just go through these, because I think these are the meat of the public comment today and the discussion. So first of all, this would result in a five lot minor subdivision if it was an equivalent preliminary plot. So minor subdivisions are exempt from parkland requirements. They're exempt from the environmental assessment requirement. They don't typically have a planning board requirement. And it would have been reviewed under chapter four of the subdivision regulations as a minor subdivision. So minor subdivisions are subject to standard conditions of approvals outlined in Appendix C. So every subdivision that comes through is gonna have conditions of approval. That's the way the subdivision regulations are designed. So when we drafted them at some point, we said, okay, what standard requirements should we have for a subdivision? Those conditions will mitigate the impacts of the subdivision. And from time to time, there's ones that come out that are not standard based on testimony, based on things like just unforeseen situations with the specific lot. But minor subdivisions are subject to The standards conditions of approval is outlined in Appendix C. So if we went to the subdivision regulations. There's a list of final plat application requirements. And there's a list of final plat requirements things that are supposed to be shown on the plot. So when we review a subdivision we go through those and we check which ones apply. So there's 31 final plot application requirements and 34 final plot requirements. These are standard conditions to mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts of the subdivision on the seven review criteria of the Montana Subdivision Planning Act. I cover this, they're applied on a case-by-case basis. There are other standard subdivision conditions, notifications to future property owners. Our regs are last updated in 2012, so we have a few other standard ones that have kind of snuck into our standard, staff reports, certain notifications about things. So we took public comment on June 3, and this is just a summary. I did attach the summary table, and all those comments given in verbal testimony are able to be viewed on the video recording of that whole thing. Those are technically the minutes of that meeting, and we got three public comments submitted. The comments primarily focused on agriculture water user facilities, agriculture operations, specifically the unregulated use of the rock ditch and potential conflicts with other water users, as well as loss of agriculture land. They also provided water rights documents, testimony from the ditch rider, and firsthand experience from the ditch riders. So that was the comments we received. They're summarized and put in the back of the staff report for you guys. So right off the bat, the current subdivision and plotting act under 76-3608 excludes the governing body from any consideration of whether the proposed subdivision would result in loss of agriculture soils. And that's just right in state law. So we can't consider that. So comments about loss of ag land being converted to housing, that's something that statute says we're not allowed to consider. And then... Moving on in this, we would look at those public comments that came in. We hear these quite often about water and irrigation districts. I would say on the majority of subdivisions in Ravalli County, we see a master irrigation plan as a condition of approval. It's not a unique condition. When a property has water rights or water shares associated with it, they have to provide a document that shows the watering schedule what lots how much lots are each getting and so those are just standard conditions we see on subdivisions that have water rights or water shares associated with them that plan is prepared by someone of working knowledge of irrigation delivery systems covered that provides maintenance costs things like that the other one is actual documentation from the appropriate irrigation company or district approving any relocation or alteration of irrigation infrastructure when the water rights shares are subject to a contract or interest in a public or private entity form to provide the use of a water right so I believe on the rock ditch we've gone through this a lot those are just water rights there's no actual formal entity that manages them so Maybe that's changed since the last time we've gone through this, but it wasn't brought up, that they actually have an actual entity that manages these things. For example, a Bitterroot Irrigation District has to approve the allocation of shares on a subdivision property. So that one may or may not apply. I'm not sure. Furthermore, the Schrock family transfer proposal, we heard a lot about Wells. septic systems, these still go through DEQ review. There's a whole chapter, 76.4. A family transfer is not completely exempt from everything. They still have the state sanitation review process, which I think there's a lot there that's just probably not known about, but the DEQ process is a lengthy process. They do have applications. They go through that whole thing. That was reviewed and approved. through the Environmental Health Department in contract with the DEQ. And that parcel remains subject to those DEQ regulations with water supply, sewage, solid waste, and stormwater. So based on the public comment and application review, I don't see anything that's significant emphasis added or anything that's out of the ordinary here. I mean, if we were to hear those comments in a subdivision, we'd say you need to do a master irrigation plan. And that's what it sounds like the folks here today talked about was that would have been a condition of approval. It would have been discussed at length. So going down, that's where I ended. It's a challenging thing to review for. on these ones, but when you're looking at a minor subdivision, one thing I do know is these regulations are from 2006 when we used to see 500 lot subdivisions come through. So I don't know if the original architects of these thought about that, the scale of these proposals. I mean, every division of land has an impact. We all know that. But what we're talking about is whether or not they'd have significant conditions. and the planning department didn't see any significant conditions. I know some can disagree with that. And I think a lot goes on in this conversation, this is a sidebar here, is that what we're really talking about today is just land use and where people want to see housing. And we're kind of in the weeds of discussing family transfers versus subdivisions and We're literally talking about lot configuration, cluster development. So it sounds like people want cluster development instead of larger size parcels. But I think that this has been a great conversation. I hope people come to more of the meetings about the exemption chapters and future subdivision regulation chapters and give their input on how they want their community to look and where they think housing should be and what the how big loss should be, all that stuff is good information to get. So that's how we designed or wrote up this staff report, and you guys can go through it and rip it apart.

Thank you, Rob. Yeah.

So for continuity, the finding of fact three, number A and B, and then A through I.

I concur with number three. Where do you want to go, Mr. Chairman? I think we need to go on to findings of fact of subdivision evasion criteria. That would be the one right after number three.

Oh, so A through I?

It's A through I.

Was G, right? No, excuse me. Was G? Yes. A through F, I concur with staff.

Report. As do I. A through F.

I concur as well.

What are you thinking on G?

I understand, number one, in Montana, whiskey's for drinking and water for fighting, and that's just the way it is. And it doesn't matter where you are, how many peeps you have on the ditch, there's conflict. My water comes down behind several subdivisions through several, and there's no doubt it's more challenging. But I've been doing it for 25 years and going up and cleaning ditch and making sure it's right. You talk to the neighbors, the new neighbors as they come in and migrate through. And I've really, you know, we get people who want to throw rocks in the ditch because of burbles or a bridge across it or a fence across it. I get that. But that's a neighborhood thing and neighbor to neighbor. And I've not seen a significant adverse impact I'm getting my water and it takes a little work to get it there almost every year, but I don't see any significant adverse impact from that. And I think the association can work with shareholders or water right holders in that association and work among themselves to allocate and appropriate the water as has been appropriated to them. I don't see it's a significant adverse impact. Is it an impact? Yeah. But is it a significant adverse impact? I don't think it rises to that elevation.

I agree with your assessment, and I concur.

I concur as well.

I concur on H and I. I concur as well.

I as well.

I really hope the Montana State Legislature addresses some of this in this upcoming session to make it consistent. And the hard thing is you go from east to west across the state. It's a whole different application of this and impact to these. And so one size fits all is never going to work. And there's going to have to be some local control or at least regional recognition from the legislature. but I have confidence the legislature can get some improvements in there. I do agree that the exemptions, and there are a number of them besides family transfer, corridor splits, they do have an impact on our road system, our road network statewide. It doesn't matter. And I'd like to hope that the legislature will take a look at that and say, well, is there a way we can carve something in there to protect existing taxpayers from the exemptions that we don't get exactions on? But until that time, I certainly don't know how to appropriate it. And again, does it rise to significant adverse impact? And Cumulatively, it sort of can be considered a death of 1,000 cuts, right? But each cut is a scratch until you get 1,000 of them. And we're going to pick out one here, one there, and have them be the poster child or not. And I don't think that's, use Andy's term, common sense. So I would uphold the decision by our planning, I move to uphold the decision by the planning department.

I think there were two findings or statements today that would help support that. That had to do with G and the water rights, the master irrigation plan. While there's nothing formal, the applicant has said that they're willing to discuss and talk with the neighbors to try and come up with a plan for the irrigation. The specifics that I weren't discussed, but I think it's a fair offer to say I want to be part of the community and work with my neighbors to make sure they have their water. The second was, while it's not a condition, there was, when I asked the applicant if they would be willing to sign the affidavit, again, not as a condition of approval, but just if they would be willing to sign it saying that this is not for the purposes of evasion, and Mr. Schrock said yes, he would.

Thank you for that. I was at the room checking on the dance appointment you missed. My motion stands. Did you actually use your microphone? I always use it. It just doesn't use me.

So I would second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded to uphold the planning department's decision on the Schrock family transfer of decision of approval. Is there any public comment on that motion?

One third. Point of clarification, are there any restrictions on this family transfer or any others or even subdivisions where there could not be another transfer five years or 10 years from now on this land? Let's say somebody has a couple kids, the 2.5 I talked about before, and they've got a five-acre parcel and these kids reach the age of maturity and can two acres be broken off of this five to transfer legally? This is a question I have and how far can that go?

I think under current law, I think that's still okay. Who knows what happens in the future.

But how far down can we break a five acre parcel?

Well, there's a lot of variables in that question, Al.

Yeah, there certainly are.

And it's not just a gray zone. It's an unknown territory. And so this is something that I know we can't fix that today, but it's something we need to consider for a future question legislatively or here.

We've talked about that, Al, and I think it makes a lot of sense. And what it does is it changes the way you're going to do your family. It makes it more palatable. So if you said any parcel exclude the remainder, but any parcel that has been a gifted piece of a family transfer has a deed restriction on it that you can no longer family transfer that piece again, that starts to make it look more like that, where we're not going to take the ranch and divide it into twenties. We're going to give you an acre here and an acre here and an acre here, keep the rest of it whole. which may allow for a family transfer portion, but I, it, it had changed the value of the property potentially. If you have this exemption and somebody says, well, I want to take this hundred, break it into five twenties. None of that property is now allowed for this exemption anymore. There's basically a deed restriction that said some prior owner did a family transfer on this. Unfortunately, As far as development goes, you'd have to start at the new point in time and say from this point forward now we're going to do that because I don't think you could retroactively go back. But that may be a way to avoid some of this taking a whole piece and breaking it up.

Well, one thing to consider, we do have a restriction that once a person does a family transfer, they can only do one more in that same county for the family. Is there something to that effect?

We can only do one in a county. One in a county.

So on the heels of that, is it possible that a restriction on, once a family transfer is done, that it can't be whittled away forever?

You've got to look to the north rather than the south right now because that's above our pay grade.

That was just a question to throw out.

Thank you, Al.

Yes, we talked about that. Is there any further public comment?

I think one thing that some of you may have picked up on and Rob said earlier is that the subdivision regulations and the family, the exemption portion of that is being reviewed and it's going to be, there's going to be meetings held on that on rewriting those. So you may have picked up on Rob saying that to provide input on that process.

It's posted on the website too.

Allen. Allen Mackey. I appreciate the chance for public input. I also would like to bring up the point that Mr. Schrock had some public input where he said specifically that he thought he was following the law to do his subdivision. And I don't disagree with that at all. I think that that has been exactly what Ravalli County has encouraged is do a cheap subdivision in the guise of a family transfer because we are not gonna look at evasion. And that's exactly what we're still doing here today is we're not looking at the potential of evasion. And he got up here himself and said that I was pretty sure at the time that I was doing it the way Ravalli County told me to do it. And he was. And I don't fault him for that, but we are the ones that get to pay the price for it. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? With that, call for the question, Greg. Aye. Jeff? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries. Thank you all for coming, and thank you for your input. Recess until 1. We will recess until 1. for a meeting for public opportunity comment on subdivision exemption applications. Shannon.

Thank you, Commissioner. First is application 2025-116, Kincaid Group, LLC, boundary line relocation. The consultant is Appleberry Survey. The parcel is 1224300, 130.55 acres. And under the same parcel number, 69.82 acres off to Rafter Way in Hamilton. It's not in a subdivision. It's not within a zoning district. It is within the FEMA floodplain. So this right here is what they're proposing, that this was the lot and lot. And they are proposing this big lot here with the little parcel, three acre.

Where's the floodplain on that?

Which parcel is the house located on? Thank you. Is there any public comment on the Kincaid Group LLC boundary line relocation? That's the one we're on, right?

The Kincaid, yes, sir.

Yes, thank you. Is there any public comment? Hearing none, we will move on.

All right. SEA 2026-060, McIntosh, Coochell? Boundary line relocation. It's Montana, Northwest Country is the consultants. Parcel number 1420400 with 19.07 acres within the floodplain, and it's within the zoning district. Can you move that up on that? Thank you. 1420300 1.53 acres and 1427800 174.31 acres, which is in the floodplain and is within a subdivision off of Slack Lane in Florence. The subdivision is Mountain View Tracks. It's Frick Zoning District PF-6368. So their proposal, this was the existing, this right here, this parcel right here, and this parcel right here. And they're trying to do a boundary line relocation of This little guy right here, this, and now this.

Okay.

Okay.

Is there any public comment on the SEA 2026-060 Kuchel-McIntosh boundary line relocation? Hearing none, we will move on.

2026-071, this is Whitmire, and this is a family transfer done by Bitterroot Engineering and Design. Parcel number 344900, 9.73 acres. It's off of Glory Lane in Stevensville. The subdivision is Sunset Orchard. No zoning district, no floodplain. And so this is what they are proposing right here. This was the entire property and they are wanting to family transfer this area right there.

And how big is that area? 1.3.

1.3. That's to a father or from a father?

This one. This is gonna be from the father to, or to the father, sorry.

Okay, thank you. Is there any public comment on SEA 2026-071, Whitmire, family transfer?

Al Babel in Corvallis. This is exactly what I was talking about at the last meeting, is the splitting off pieces for a family transfer from small parcels of land. And I know, like I said, we can't fix this today, but I think this leads us in an area that we probably need to find a way to consider how many splits can be done on a piece of property. And I know what Jeff said before is that there's no law that says you can't split it and keep splitting it. But here we have a 10. And I didn't hear how big the little piece was they split off. Was that? 1.3. 1.3. So technically, they could do four or five more of these on that piece of ground or more. And so, I mean, when is enough is enough? That was my question. And since we're trying to make the county better, more sustainable, this is something that we need to look at that's, in my opinion, not very sustainable, especially with the for sale signs that are everywhere. Just something to consider, thank you.

Thank you, Al.

Thank you, Al.

Any further public comment? Okay, we will move on.

SEA 2026-081, Rubic. Boundary line relocation, and this is baseline surveying, is the consultant. Parcel 62190, 11.52 acres, and 62230, 13.64 acres off of Mason Lane in Corvallis. It's within the Hamilton Heights subdivision. It's not within a zoning district, nor is it within the FEMA floodplain.

Who'd you say the applicant was?

I'm sorry?

Who'd you say the applicant was?

It is Rubick, Sarah Rubick and Aaron Rubick. I mean, Andrew.

Thank you.

So they are basically, this used to be the boundary line right here. and this was the entire property. Now they're taking that boundary line out, and this is gonna be, oops, sorry, the new boundary line, and then this is the second parcel over here.

and how many old blocks there were? It's two.

With boundary line, you start with the amount that you're going to end with. So it started with two, it's ending with two.

So it used to be an L?

See this, the existing boundary line? This was the property before. Now they're taking that out. And this is going to be, or this was the property before. They're taking this out. And so this over to here to here is going to be the new proposal. Do you want to see it over here, Alan?

Sure.

This is going to be the new proposal.

Okay.

And it had this right here. Okay, I gotcha. And so now they're just reversing it. Thank you. Yep, you're welcome.

Any further public comment?

Hearing none, we will move on. 2026-082, Birch, Costello, Family Tramp.

I have the wrong number. What's the SEA number? 26 what?

082.

I apologize, typo.

Okay. Go ahead. Birch Costello Family Transfer, and this is with Bitterroot Engineering and Design. Parcel number 137610, 9.84 acres off of North Birch Creek Road in Corvallis. The subdivision is Mountain View Orchard. It's not within a zoning district and it's not within the FEMA flood point. So this is going to, they're proposing that this will be going to his mother, Patricia Costello. And so it used to be this full parcel and they're taking 1.5 acres and the 8.5 will be the remainder.

And that's a family transfer?

Yes, sir.

So if there was a zoning district that said a minimum 10-acre lots, what would that do for you? Would you kick this out and say, no, you can't do it here?

With a zoning district, we let the consultant know We inform them that they are not unable to do that.

So why don't you guys do a zoning district around your properties and zone it to a minimum size and make a requirement that you have to have an irrigation. I mean, something like that. Because, I mean, that's what.

I mean, there is a zoning district on another site.

And district by district, it can be different as to who is going to do the litigation. And, you know, there are plenty of people who would object to a zoning district being created, a citizen-initiated zoning district being created by neighbors and then wanting the general taxpayer to come in and fund enforcement and litigation. Yeah.

so that's that's part of that conversation we have the older ones are so some of the really old ones some of them have just terms in there that are enforced by like just certain parts of them are enforced by the county and then the others aren't so i've seen that too i guess what i was saying is i've heard a common theme through the family transfers that this is not located in a zoning district and and then on and on with the report i thought well It seemed like maybe a quick scrub for the community up there. Put together a zoning district and size of density that you want. Just a thought. Be a way to scrub them out. I think it's a good thought.

Please don't ever say that again. please don't ever say that again. No, that he had a good thought.

I think one note on those zoning districts, just for Alan and now in the back, if we have a review process, it's easy for us to catch things. But a lot of the zoning put into place, like building restrictions, like setbacks and, you know, type of building. And unless there's a septic review, uh, subdivision process some of the stuffs do you know it's without a review process it is hard to review it's people just do things and then next thing you know you got 10 buildings that violate setbacks and so I always recommend in future zoning districts people look at what the county can review for now and what we have in place and those those typically are like where we look at them on the front end like zoning and subdivisions, you know, we honor the zoning districts where state law allows.

Thank you, Rob. Appreciate that. Is there any further public comment on the Birch Costello family transfer? Hearing none, we will move on.

All right. 2026-083. What did you say? Ayala. Ayala, Ayala. Family Transfer Appleberry Survey is the consultant. Parcel number 674700, a 3.0 acre parcel off of Skalkoha Highway in Hamilton. It is in the Harrison Point subdivision, no zoning, and no floodplain. So this was the entire parcel and they want to cut this parcel part off, gifted remainder for their son.

There you go, Al. We're getting smaller and smaller.

Is there any public comment on subdivision exemption application 2026-083 Ayala, family transfer? Hearing none, we will move on.

All right, 2026084, Tilden. Boundary line relocation, Appleberry Survey is the consultant. The parcel, 389710, 19.98 acres, and 389700, 19.97 acres. Willoughby, Lane, and Steveye. is in Home Acres Orchard number three, no zoning and no floodplain. Terry, you want to take this away since you're here?

These took two 20s and made it 20 and 10.

Yes.

Is this for the purposes of evasion?

Okay.

Is there any public comment on the Tilden boundary line relocation? Hearing none, we will move on.

2026085, Lyons Living Trust and Olsen Trust. This is a boundary line relocation. Appleberry Survey is the consultant. Parcel number 4, 39960, 16.7 acres off of Grizzly Way, Stevensville, and 4, 39930, 10.08 acres off of Cougar Lane, Stevensville. It's located within the Sunnyside Orchard number 3, no zoning and no floodplain. And this one was expired, correct?

Yeah, we have gotten approval. Basically, lot eight was up for sale. Lot seven, the owner of that has his house right next to where you see the lines recorded. It wasn't over the line.

I was curious, I mean, you look at that line, it's not nearly as clean and pretty as the old one.

It is when the house is right next to it.

Thank you, Terry. Is there any public comment on the Lyons-Olson boundary line relocation? Hearing none, we will move on.

All right, 2026 is, hold on just one second. 2026086 King Critchlow, family transfer. Appleberry Survey is the consultant. Parcel number 436400, 8.78 in acreage off of Cougar Lane in Stevensville. Sunnyside Orchard number three is the subdivision, no zoning district, no floodplain. So right here was the whole entire parcel, and here's the mom with the remainder, and she is gifting to James and Jeffrey. Sons? What was that?

Which portion is the remainder?

Husband and a son.

Oh, I see it, okay.

Jeffrey is the son and James is the husband.

Is there any public comment on SEA 2026-086, King, Critchlow, family transfer? Hearing none, we will move on.

OK. This application is no longer on hold because I was able to receive the official birth certificate. So 2026087 Canard, family transfer. This is Kearney Land serving as the consultant. Parcel number 109700. 9.53 acres off of Oil Will Road in Corvallis. Revelle Farm is a subdivision. It is not within a zoning district, nor is it within the FEMA floodplain. So this whole parcel, all the way down to the bottom right there, is the parcel. And this will be the gifted to the son right here. And this will be the remainder. And so this is 7.94 acres, and the gifted parcel is 1.56, I think. Yeah, 1.56 acres.

Never seen yards used on one of these before. Yards. 108.3 yards. Oh, I know. 70 yards. Uh-huh.

I don't know. I've never seen that before. Yeah, that is a new one, isn't it? Is there any public comment on subdivision exemption application 2026-087, Kennard, family transfer? Hearing none, we will move on. Where is my last one?

I couldn't find my thing.

Five minutes, huh?

So this is 2026088 Moore family transferred. Kearney Land serving is the consultant. Parcel number 1243400. 9.85 acreage, located off of Sunnyside Cemetery Road in Stevensville. It is not located within a subdivision, nor a zoning district, nor the floodplain. So Jennifer will... Sorry, let me get this real quick. Jennifer will be gifting to her spouse, Sean Moore. And this right here is gifted to the spouse, this area down, running down this way. And this will be the remainder right there. And it'll show remainder on this side. 2.6 acres and the gifted will be 7.27 acres.

Thank you. Is there any public comment on subdivision exemption application 2026-088, Moore family transfer? We will conclude. Thank you. Thanks, guys.

Commissioners, for the record, your 2 to 2.30 was canceled. So would you like to recess until 2.30? We will recess until... You might have a public comment.

I have a question. On this ground here, the only one that had floodplain involved in the family transfers, is there never a question about that? Because if they're splitting off the land to family transfers, I don't think banks will give notes on that. I can help answer that, Mr. Chair. So I want to say there's two

Yeses for floodplain and both of those were boundary line relocations And when we have a yes, it doesn't mean necessarily the entire properties in the floodplain. We just have Shannon flag it As a layer just like zoning So to answer your question now You know, we don't see family transfers creating lots for the purpose of Building a house. I don't think we've seen many. I don't know of any family transfers or the gifted parcels completely floodplain period because they can't get a septic permit in there. So we have seen creative people do that you can build in the floodplain in certain areas. You can build a house in the flood fringe by permit if you meet the design standards and the floodplain regulations. And people will have a drain field that's out of the floodplain meeting all the setbacks, and they'll pump their waste. So I wouldn't say it's a never, but I haven't seen many family transfers. I would imagine some of these relocations we see, the one on Slack Lane was because of kind of a historic dispute over a fence line. And then the one in Rafter was probably for tax purposes to get a smaller parcel and a larger parcel. We see relocations of boundaries like that quite often. So does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. And with that, we will recess until 2.30 p.m. Okay, good afternoon all. We will reconvene with the Board of County Commissioners review and possible decision on the Cheeseboro Phase 5 Conservation Easement.

All right, this is, thank you. This is a request to act on the Cheeseboro Ranch Conservation Easement Open Lands Bond Program Phase 5 documentation, Phase 5 final documentation. In November of 2006, the citizens of Ravalli County voted to pass the open lands bond ballot question and spend $10 million to help preserve open lands in Ravalli County. In December of 2006, the Ravalli County Board of County Commissioners signed Resolution 2256, which established the Ravalli County open lands bond program. The open lands board was established by Resolution 2020 in December of 2006 to review OLBP applications and make recommendations to the BCC. The Cheeseboro Ranch Conservation Easement OLBP application was submitted on November 4, 2025. On December 18, 2025, the OLB voted 10-0 to recommend the project be approved by the BCC at the $315,000 funding level requested. On March 5, 2026, the BCC voted 3-0 to preliminarily approve the application at the funding level requested. Final documentation required. pursuant to the BCC's preliminary approval, was submitted to the planning department by the Bitterroot Land Trust on August 14, 2026. The planning department has determined that the final documentation is complete and in conformance with the BCC's preliminary approval. The planning department provided the documentation to the county attorney's office for the review, and no comments were received. The recommended motion is that the Cheeseboro Ranch Conservation Easement final documentation be approved and that the requested $315,000 be issued to Fidelity National Title Company of Montana LLC to distribute to Cheeseboro Ranch LLC to help cover the cost of the conservation easement and project-related costs. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Cheeseboro Ranch CE final documentation be approved and that the requested 315,000 be issued to the Fidelity National Title Company of Montana LLC to distribute to Cheeseboro Ranch LLC to help cover the costs and conservation easement and project-related costs. Second.

Via resolution.

Via resolution. What is the resolution on this? 4817. Thank you. Second.

Second.

OK, it's been moved and seconded to approve Resolution 4817, a resolution of the Ravalli County Board of Commissioners to expend $315,000 of open lands bond program proceeds towards the Bitterroot Land Trust acquisition of a conservation easement on the property owned by Cheeseburger Ranch. Is there any public comment on that motion? Please.

Hi, everyone. Jake Blessing. I'm a conservation project manager at the Bitterroot Land Trust. We just want to say a big thanks to Bruce and Joan Cheeseborough, who are over here, and their family for working with us to protect their land. The property is important for many reasons, not least for being very visible to the public from Willow Creek Road, Coal Pit Road, and other roads in Corvallis. It also adds a lot of conservation value to projects that recently went through the open lands bond process. like the Erickson property and the Griffin property, for example. We want to thank the planning department staff and the open lands board for their time and effort reviewing the application and facilitating the process, the taxpayers for funding the open lands bond, and the commissioners for considering this project for funding. I'm happy to answer any questions there may be about the phase five packet.

Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Jake. Anybody else have a public comment?

Well, I have almost the same words to say as Jake, but I'd like to thank you all in person, the taxpayers, the commissioners, the county planning staff, and the Open Space Land Board, I now realize how incredibly much time they have to put in to do a project like this. And it was a real eye-opener to me, really interesting. It sort of really involves you emotionally if you own the property, and Joan and I have thought upon it as a very enjoyable experience, and I'm glad you made it that way for us, and I hope it will be approved.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, and with that, I will call for the question. Commissioner Chilcott? Aye. And Commissioner Burroughs? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, is there any public comment on items not otherwise on our agenda? So we are adjourned. Thank you.