Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Good morning, all. I will call the Thursday, September 17th, Board of County Commissioners meeting to order. Chris, will you do roll call, please?

Commissioner Halls?

Here.

Commissioner Chilcott?

Here.

Commissioner Burroughs?

Here.

Commissioner Chilcott, will you lead us in the pledge this morning?

Aye.

Pledge allegiance. Thank you, Greg. Public comment. For those participating by agranicus, you may call 406-375-6513 in order to provide your public comment. And we have some public comment this morning? Yes. Please come to the microphone.

Please state your name.

Good morning. My name's Dave Jones.

Thanks, Dave.

I'm with the Bitterroot Climate Action Group. And we are presenting authoritative articles backed by peer-reviewed research to local government on the problem of rapid human-caused climate change. As an angler, retired fishing guide, and longtime advocate for fish and wildlife habitat, I would like to voice my concern about the effects of global warming on the Bitterroot River watershed and the cold water fishery it supports. That advocacy includes serving as the president of our local Trout Unlimited chapter, as well as a member of the State Council of Trout Unlimited. I also served on the board of Montana Conservation Voters and was a founding member of what is now the Bitterroot Water Partnership. Having fished this river for 45 years, I am finding that my personal anecdotal experience aligns almost perfectly with the latest science around impacts due to climate change. We can now see that many of the key findings of the Montana Climate Assessment, published in 2017, have proven accurate. For instance, from the summary, quote, historical observations show a shift toward earlier snowmelt and an earlier peak in spring runoff in the Mountain West, including Montana. Projections suggest that these patterns are very likely to continue into the future as temperatures increase, as I think we're all pretty aware. The report also states that earlier onset of snowmelt and spring runoff will reduce late summer water availability in snowmelt-dominated watersheds. So as a perfect example, this July flows at Stevensville dropped to 150 cubic feet per second, and water temperatures reach 73 degrees, prompting fishing restrictions. The historical average for this date is 350 cubic feet per second. This early runoff is also causing tributaries to dry up, tributaries which play an important role in spawning and rearing of young trout. Low flows and warming also promote the incursion of species such as pike and smallmouth bass, which thrive in these warmer conditions. These predator fish are moving upstream at an accelerated rate. I am personally seeing increasing numbers of large pike in the Stevi to Florence stretch, which I fish often. I'm especially concerned for our native species, west slope cutthroat and bull trout. Cutthroat are rare fish existing in only 2% of their historical range. Bull trout are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. And because both of these require clean, cold water, they serve much as canaries did in coal mines. If a stream supports cutthroat, it will also have healthy populations of birds, other wildlife, and aquatic insects. Key findings of a peer-reviewed study published in Nature Climate Change state that, quote, climate change is exposing freshwater fish to warmer temperatures, causing widespread range contraction and population declines. Of course, every watershed is different. And here in the Bitterroot, we are blessed with an amazing irrigation system of dams and ditches, including water reserved for in-stream flows. But because we are often the only ones with water, we are seeing vastly increased pressure from private and commercial angling from all over the country. All of this adds up to impacts on a vital resource And it is my hope our local governments can work towards policies which help to mitigate these impacts. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Dave, just out of curiosity, what would that policy be? Well, could it be that, I mean, for example, did you drive here in a combustion engine today?

I did, in fact, yes.

So that's the contribution to the issue that you're talking about, right?

Right.

Probably filled with some two-by-fours and some synthetics in there. Oh, yeah.

We all contribute.

Yeah. I guess that's some of the frustration and struggle that I have with this. I've heard folks come here and talk about this man-made climate change, and they roll up in an eight-cylinder SUV. Hypocrisy. Now, if they rolled up in a bicycle, and they said, I live off-grid, and my water comes from solar power, you know, all these things. Mm-hmm. But the hypocrisy of somebody to talk about the commissioners regulating somehow to reduce the impacts of climate change, I guess where I'd say start is these folks get held less than the impact by not driving a combustion engine vehicle.

Sure, sure. I'd love to see that policy across the nation.

I think another thing is on the stream flows. We are seeing some changes in the temperatures and climate dynamics. For late season flow, though, I don't think we can argue that we've burnt off a significant portion of our watershed. And a lot of those areas just don't hold snowpack like they used to because we've seen catastrophic wildfires. I can't say that that's all of it, but I think that's definitely a factor.

I was pleased to hear you bring up the dams, the irrigation infrastructure that was built in the 1800s, early 1900s to reserve water for late season flow for our irrigators and how that contributes to the late in-stream flows to the Bitterroot River. However, many people oppose any time we bring up the maintenance to those dams and requirements for maintenance to those dams because some knucklehead in Washington, D.C. do the wilderness boundary. front of those those dams that were constructed long before the Wilderness Act mm-hmm and we've asked and asked and asked to have that boundary redrafted around those dams which are clearly man-made structures which are clearly not suitable for designation as wilderness and should not be behind the wilderness boundary you recognize that those dams are important for a the fishery for Ravalla County, the Bitterroot Valley, and our irrigators. Absolutely. So it would be really nice if a group like yours would support consideration of moving those wilderness boundaries behind those dams so that we could, in fact, maintain them, not only for the water reservation, but also for public health and safety. And so I was glad to hear you bring that up.

Right. I worked on the big hole for many years, and I'm seeing what's happening over there where they don't have reserved water anywhere or much stored water. So I appreciate your points taken. Thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

Thanks for coming.

OK. School levies.

The clicker recorder has still not received the information for today's meeting through the OPI and has requested to either reschedule or continue this meeting to next Thursday.

Mr. Chair, I move to continue this meeting to September 24th at 1030. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to continue the meeting regarding school levies to September... What's the date? 24th. At 10.30? 10.30.

Don't we have the public health nurse evaluation? No, that got rescheduled. From the 24th? Oh.

I have it on the 24th. Let's see.

Wait. Yeah, I do. I have that on there as well at 10.30.

I think it was rescheduled. You can go at 11 if you want. 1130.

I'd amend my motion to Thursday the 24th at 1130.

Okay. The motion's been amended to Thursday the 24th at 1130. Is there any public comment on that motion? Your second still stands. Is there any public comment on that motion? Seeing none, call for the question. Greg? Aye. Jeff? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries. Okay.

Oh, boy.

Oh, boy.

That must be me. That must be you. Good morning, gentlemen. Good morning, Todd. So we finally got the actual contract for the Equiture recording system. They actually, we were waiting on the install cost before we brought everything over to you. So the recorder, the actual cost of the recorder came in at 41,000. Oh, man, I just had it. 41,810. with all the licensing and everything that we had to have with TalkPath licensing. So it was $41,810. I believe we had talked, we had thought it was gonna come in at $46,000 as far as just the hardware itself. And that was part of that block of money that I came over here and you guys had approved. So that was $41,810 and then Our local Harris dealer has to do the install, Gold Communications. We worked through our Harris rep, Miss Megan, and with Orson, and they cut us a, we got a couple of things knocked down by 30%, so overall we saved about $4,000 on that install, and that install's gonna be $12,795. And I think both of those are below what we had originally budgeted. So I believe they sent the contract to you, Dan, for a digital signature. DocuSign. DocuSign. You've got the... recorder contract that equator recorder with the maintenance and everything that's gonna gonna you know it all requires licensing and maintenance we're paying about the same thing for the one that we have now as far as the quarterly maintenance bill So I just wanted to bring that over and show you guys to let you know that I'm trying to save us as much money as we can. And I think we're way below where we're at because I got the 911 software for significantly less than they had quoted at the beginning.

I love how you guys come in and you're saving us money at 55 grand. It's all a matter of perspective.

I think I knocked almost that much off the software contract. So.

Ms. Chairman would move to approve the expenditure of $54,605 for the Equitour system. It's been moved. $54,605. The way my abacus came out. Okay.

been moved and seconded to approve the expenditure of fifty four thousand six hundred five dollars for the equator program and installation is there any public comment on that motion further discussion tell megan thank you for yeah that was the the big deal was the software company really really worked with us so we knocked quite

under total where we were. But I thank you. We have finally, as soon as this stuff gets installed, you approved money for the 49-inch curved screen monitors. I ordered two of them and installed them already just to make sure that my dispatchers, the communication specialists, were going to be okay with how they worked. They're working great. I'll get with Jan and get the other eight ordered And install is, we're on track. We did our pre-install meeting and looked at all our equipment racks and everything, and we're good to go on almost everything. There's no issues with anything as far as how we're set up and how it's gonna work. But we're gonna move this dispatch center into the... into the 2000s, and it needed to be there for a while. So I thank you very much, and the 911 communication specialists are going to be able to do a much better job for us this way.

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

Thank you. So we did not see the installation via email, so if you need to get that signed...

They'll bill us, but that's... Oh, okay. So I'll just keep it with mine? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

And what's the time frame, would you guess?

The Equature, the recorder system, should be less than six months, and we're right on the outside of six months for the software install.

Okay.

So as we stand right now.

So everything on our end is ready.

Yes, sir. What we did is we did our pre-install walkthrough. We did it over a tablet, voice over IP. videoed everything that they had. So the server room for our thing that Eric and RJ and Jeff and Rick have made sure, I've been in and out of a lot of those server rooms in my time in the military and this one's really squared away so we don't have to do anything. We got the room, we'll have to run some cabling and It's all out in the open. It's only going 40 feet or so, so we're set. We're just waiting on them to get everything built and put together. They've already shipped out some parts, and we're just waiting for everything for the rest of it to show up and then get the crew on and then get it installed and get the training done.

Correct. We would appreciate you keeping us updated on that as it progresses.

Yes, sir. I'll come over every other month if that works until we get her done. Sure. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioners, also under administrative, we received a new credit card request for Laura Smith, who took over.

She's assisting the behavioral health manager.

And why does she need a credit card?

Victoria had one. I don't know the reasoning. She just said, can I get one? And I asked how much, and the request was for $1,500, which the previous person had as well.

Move to approve.

$1,500.

It's been moved and seconded to approve a credit card in the amount of $1,500 for Laura Smith at the Sheriff's Office. Is there any public comment on that motion? For the discussion, question, Greg? Aye. Jeff? Aye. And I put aye as well. Motion carries.

We have one more new credit card request from Sheriff Holton for Lieutenant Todd Warford at a $3,000 limit.

I have to approve of a $3,000 credit card for Todd Warford.

I'll second. Been moved and seconded to approve a $3,000 credit card for Tom Wolford. Todd. Todd. Todd Wolford at the Sheriff's Office. Is there any public comment on that motion? Further discussion? Question, Jeff? Aye. Greg? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries.

That's that.

And that's that. So we will recess until, is it 11? Yes.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Ron Worth. I think probably most of you know me. We are, this group is represented by attorney John Massar. He's on Zoom, as you can see. So I'd like to start by handing these to you. That'd be okay?

That'd be fine. Thank you.

So just to briefly summarize what has transpired, on Tuesday, June 16, mid-afternoon, a substitute postal service driver, first name Scott, don't know the last name, went off the road at Bear Creek Trail and hurt himself very badly. He was transported to St. Pat's Hospital, where he was in critical condition. My understanding is he has since been released and is in physical rehab. I wanted to start by the postmaster, right after this happened, the postmaster and his meter determined that she was no longer going to deliver mail at Bear Creek Trail. So as you can see from the letter, the first page in your handout it is She's saying that the reason that they can't deliver mail is because the county road Bear Creek Trail is unsafe and It is it is degrading The road traffic is heavy on this road It was never delivered This letter was not ever delivered. This letter, I was told by the postmaster that she would deliver it, even if she had to bring it out and put it in each person's mailbox. That never happened. There was a small stack of these at the post office. And a number of people in this group told me, because I went around and visited a bunch of people a few days ago, and a number of people told me they never got the letter. Most of the regulations are very, very specific that the letter has to have each person's individual name and address, and it has to be delivered to them personally. And if any action taken to have these group mailboxes must be approved in writing by each individual customer. Neither of those things, plus a lot of other postal regulations, have not been complied with. So daily on Bear Creek Trail, daily, we have multiple Amazon trucks, multiple UPS trucks, multiple FedEx trucks. The Forest Service road of Bear Face, which is at the end of Bear Creek Trail, but it is a Forest Service road, that road had seven or eight inches of road base put on hundreds and hundreds of loads went up that very same road in dumps bottom dumps there are semis making deliveries on a daily basis there are easily 100 vehicles on that road every day easily assuming that the road needs to be fixed because that's what the postmaster says there is And I spoke to Commissioner Hulse a couple of weeks ago. There is a federal grant that's available for just this type of situation. I was concerned. I had been told that there was a huge fee for it. The fellow, his name is Scott Smithline. He's the project manager with the Montana Federal Lands Access Program. He was very, very helpful. And he said there is no fee to apply for this. If a fee was paid by Ravalli County, it was paid to consultants. But he said, in the handout, you'll see the information from him. He said there's webinars, and he says the application process is very simple. He said there's no need for a consultant. It can be done fairly easily. But he said he's always available, and all his contact information is there, so anyone who needs to apply for this and would like to ask questions or would like some help, he would be more than happy to get on the line and help. I found him to be a wonderful, nice man. There are three conditions that you must meet in order to qualify for this grant. One, the road must connect to Forest Service property, which it does. Both the Forest Service Trailhead at Bear Creek Trailhead and Bareface Road, which is Forest Service Road. Secondly, it needs to be a publicly owned road, which this is. It is a county road. Thirdly, If the post office says that the road isn't passable, that is a qualifier for this. So I went, my friend Dan Nixon here, went to the site of the accident, which was on his property. And at the narrowest point, this road measures 17 feet. So.

Could you, Ron, just for clarification, so we know exactly where we're talking about. Is it Bear Creek here? Look at the screen.

Bear Creek Trail. There are two roads. There's Bear Creek Road and Bear Creek Trail.

And this is Bear Creek Road up here to the trailhead?

No, that's Bear Creek Trail.

Where does it start at? Where does it become Bear Creek Trail from Bear Creek down here?

At Red Crow, Oil Road, Red Crow.

Right here. Right there. So this is the start of Bear Creek Trail. Right. And then up to the trailhead, this stretch here.

My understanding is that yesterday, September 16th, the post office agreed to deliver mail on the bottom half of this trail. So from that, there is a sign that says, and I think the address is 925, I can't recall the address, Bear Creek Trail. But that's where the bus stop turnaround is. And it's locally known as the bus stop turnaround. And from that point down, they agreed to deliver, and they did deliver mail. Apparently yesterday some people in this room said they did get mail. So a number of the people who are affected by this stoppage have filed complaints with both Senator Sheehy's office and Representative Ryan Zinke's office. Federal investigations have been opened up into this, and they're ongoing. We did contact the governor's office, and of course the governor said, it's a federal issue, it's not a state issue. We understand that. And we're not wanting the county to get involved. So John Massar, the attorney, sent a response letter to the postmaster. And it is six pages. There's a copy of it in front of you. The one request that we would have of the county is, because we're aware that the postmaster or someone from the USPS has contacted the county, and I don't know if it's John Horrett or someone else, but contacted the county requesting easements to put these pedestal mailboxes. Bear Creek Trail is a road, and you can see from the map, It is not. There are not huge right of ways. Every place, there needs to be, according to postal regulations, there needs to be a place for people who are picking up their mail from one of these pedestal mailboxes to turn around. The only place that you could possibly do that is by what's known as the bus stop. Unfortunately, the people who own the property... Where's the bus stop at?

I mean, it's nice because I'm not exactly familiar. I've been up there in a while. What's that? Is it 951?

951, right?

Right out there.

Right in here? 953, right above it. Right there.

Right.

It's not. I don't think it's in right away. It's actually in the green area.

So the bus stop does turn around there daily, which is where the nickname came from. But if pedestal mailboxes were included there, it would be a really unsafe condition for the school bus driver, for the children, for all the people picking up their mail. It would be really unsafe.

Can I ask a question real quick? So right now, the expectation of what had been happening is the they had been delivering mail up this Bear Creek Trail?

No. No mail. All the residents have to go to the post office to get their mail. And the people who live here are mostly elderly. Many are disabled military veterans. And all of those people, if you're elderly or you're a disabled veteran, the postal regulation says you can apply for an exemption. So they must deliver your mail.

So question, though, before the June accident, they were delivering mail. Oh, absolutely. And were they were the they were just delivering. So, like, they're not going down any of these. The mailboxes are along the road. They were just traveling that main corridor. Correct.

That's correct. So, for instance, I live on. North Burr Road, but the post office will not deliver, never would deliver up there. So my mailbox is on Bear Creek Trail, and that's where every day I had to pick up my mail. So we have one request from the county, and that request is for the interim of the federal investigations, we would humbly request that the county not approve any right-of-way for these boxes. Once that investigation is done, then whatever is appropriate is appropriate. But until that time, we would request respectfully that there not be any access given to the post office since it is an ongoing federal investigation. Multiple investigations, I might add.

Another question. So who had the conversation with the post office? Was that you, John?

I have spoken with Tim Gregory Jones from the post office.

And they've said that the road is in a condition that they don't feel comfortable going up there right now?

So before the accident, they had requested a CBU. And my understanding at that time is it was mostly related to ice conditions up there. After the accident, they had deemed it where they did not want to deliver mail. And so they suggested numerous spots to put it in. We were going to impact driveways. I had found a couple spots that I said that were possible, but they would have to put turnarounds and culverts in to be able to place it in that spot. And yeah, there were two spots. I forget the exact locations. I got it in my notes somewhere. But they said that they would be willing to pay for CBU only and not do any extra work beyond that. They being the post office? The postal delivery and then her Actually, there's three representatives. There's someone from Frenchtown that's over here, and then also the, I don't know the guy's name, some guy from out of state called.

So as I said, my mailbox is on Bear Creek Trail. My mailbox is located just before you enter the trailhead. So I'm at the very end of that route. About two years ago, I got a newer mailbox. Mine had some issues. And so I thought it appropriate for me to go to the postmaster and let her know that I had gotten a different mailbox. I was still gonna put my address on it. She knows where it is. And when I told her that I had just gotten this new mailbox, one that's impervious to somebody hitting it with a baseball bat, really heavy, because we've had that happen. She asked me if I would accept one of those CBUs right then, over two years ago. And I said, I have no interest in that. I said, if I want an apartment-style mailbox, I'd move to an apartment. No way do I want that. And she pressed. She said, well, I've come across these mailboxes, and I'd very much like for you to take one of these, because I really don't like the regular mailboxes. And I refused at that time. So this is not something that's new. As John said, they've been pressing for this for a while. We all know that the post office is under extreme financial burden. But her letter very clearly says it's because of the road conditions. We've given an opportunity for the county to contact the United States Department of Transportation and get a grant at no cost. The consultant is what costs money, correct?

Yes, President. The program used to require a 13% match, and you're right. Now it's no percent match. But for a successful grant, I think one would need a consultant.

Right. So my thought would be if the county were to try to pursue this grant, involve the USPS, and then say, there's the road. Tell us where it needs to be improved. And my personal opinion? People have been going up and down this road for 40 years. This used to be, over 20 years ago, and I don't know that John knows this, but over 20 years ago, this was a Forest Service road. The residents raised, you know what, about the maintenance on the road or lack of maintenance from the U.S. Forest Service, and so at some point, Well over 20 years ago, the US Forest Service ceded ownership of the road to the county. Not that that matters, but those are the facts. So the road actually is better than it was when it was Forest Service. Because you know how often the Forest Service puts a grader on a road or repairs anything. The county currently does an excellent job sanding the road when it's icy. Those of us who are up on that hill in the wintertime when it's icy, we know that when it looks like window glass, we know that it's dangerous to drive on. And we have expected nothing more than to not get our mail for a couple of days in a row when the road is in that condition. And everybody's fine with that. We're just not fine with all these elderly and handicapped people having to drive 44 miles a week down to the post office to pick up our mail. Postal regulations also says, one of the other regulations that's very important, postal customers, if they're required to come to the post office when they had delivery, must, shall, I think is the word, be offered a free post office box. That hasn't happened. Yeah, yeah, you have to pay for them. And they have fees scheduled right on the board. But the regulation says they must be operative free if it's an interim situation, which obviously picking up mail is not what they want and not what we want either. In addition to that, there are grocery store sale ads that are sent out once a week. Super One, Albertsons, Safeway. All those ads come in the mailbox. We're not getting them. So, I worked at the post office when I was a youngster, and I was told it was a felony to throw mail away. What do you suppose happens, because they do have a small stack of those ads, but you have to ask for them. They don't give them to you. Most people view those as junk mail. However, Super 1, the manager told me that just at the calendar year last year, Super 1 paid $95,000 to have these ads go out. And they're not going out. Nobody's getting them. So let's assume, and I was told at the counter, and most of the people are very nice people, but I was told if you want the sale ads, you have to ask for them. But they have a whole stack of them. And when that next week's ad comes out, what do you suppose happens to that stack? I think we all know what happens to the stack.

So I guess just so I'm tracking with you, Ron, what are we here for? Are we here for the post office doing their job in general, for example, the ads and not delivering them? Or are we talking about the road and the road delivery?

The reason we are here is we want to present the grant application with the contact information so the grant can be applied for if you choose to do that. Or two, and maybe more importantly, is that we respectfully ask the county not grant any right away for them to put any of these cluster boxes until the federal investigations are completed. That's what we ask. That's really what we want. Because we know the county and the federal government are, you know, there's a big gap there. So we're not wanting to get the county involved in that.

Thank you.

Does that make sense?

Yes. Thank you. So just on the- It looks like the attorney's trying to talk. I'm sorry.

We're not hearing him.

We're not hearing him.

We're not hearing you. Maybe that's because this is muted.

Can you hear me now?

We can now. Thank you.

Thanks, guys. A couple questions to support Mr. Wirth. For John Horat, did the post office or the official that you spoke to, did they indicate whether this was a temporary suspension or a permanent change?

Nothing in the letter that I could see, but over the counter, she said it was a permanent change. change to these cluster mailboxes, and it was beyond any conversation. She said it was permanent. I think that question was directed at John.

John?

Yes, Mr. Horat?

I'm not certain. I mean, I think the intent was to be permanent because they're putting in the central box delivery unit. So it seemed to me that it was going to be a permanent situation.

Yes. Yes. So, but they didn't really state other than a sort of a vague claim that the road was unsafe when you spoke to him, Mr. Horik?

Oh, yes. It was vague. She wasn't spoofed. Ron, that was a good one. Oh, it's for John? Yes. Ron, John, sounds the same. Sorry. Sorry.

I guess the question, John, since you, you spoke to this person was. If were they just indicating that it was generally unsafe or there were specific concerns that made it permanently unsafe because they haven't really been clear. On it seems to me, they're moving the goalposts, you know, by just saying, well, it's, it's not safe. Because it's either temporarily suspended, delivered because of unsafe conditions that can be rectified, or it's permanently suspended because it's going to be permanently unsafe. And so it's important, I think, especially on the record for the commissioners to know what it was that they said or their reasons for suspending service. Yeah.

Hi, John. My name is Madison Halsey. I'm a civil attorney for Ravalli County. We've requested a meeting. Is it not on?

It is. It should be red. It's on. It's on.

Hers is green. Hers is green. It's on.

I apologize, Madison.

It just needs to be closer.

Sorry. We've requested a meeting with the Postal Service for their position. And to date, nothing has been communicated to council.

OK.

So whether they've communicated to Mr. Horat, I don't know. They've not taken an official position with the county as far as the county knows.

Okay. And do we know who Mr. Horat spoke to? I don't have a name to go with that, the conversation he's referencing.

There was definitely the postmaster.

of for Victor.

Yes. Chris.

Miss Miss meter.

Yeah, Chris, I can't spell it either. And then I think her boss, which was the French town postmaster. And there's a regional fellow that I can't recall his name. Okay.

And john, I've spoken with a Jeanette. And she's out of Coeur d'Alene. There's also an individual named Leanne who I have not spoken with, but apparently she's part of the discussion, as well as their legal counsel.

Okay. But you haven't received any indication as to the basis for this determination being a permanent or a temporary suspension, so nothing concrete to know why

you know road conditions being this that or the other or during uh seasonal changes nothing nothing again to go off of nothing nothing specific was cited other than potentially unsafe for their drive okay okay and today the only information that we've received is actually your correspondence is that correct do you have anything and and what's been provided by mr worth today

Yeah, yeah, that's what we've had to go off of. And then, yeah.

I mean, I've had a few residents with some emails and things.

But nothing from the post office.

Our regular permanent driver has been on this route for a long time. Never had problems.

Yeah, I think that's worth putting on the record, too, is that, you know, this road has been more or less the same for, I think, Ron, you said 15 years at least has been, you know, winter, summer, spring, fall. The road has been the road. There's nothing that has, you know, collapsed on an embankment or nothing that's changed it dynamically yet. to make this decision at least obvious to the rest of us.

The only damage that's been done to the road at the crash site is when two tow trucks had to pull the car back off over the top. You can see the indentation. But you have to look very carefully. But other than that, nothing's changed in this road for years.

I think I have had the neighbors say there's more traffic than there used to be.

What's that?

There's more traffic.

We will open public comment soon.

I just wanted to point out that while the representative from Federal Lands Access Program says it's a really simple, process, these are very competitive grants, especially since they drop the match requirement. So they're highly competitive. So having someone that's very familiar with the grant process and the grant program, pretty important if you want to compete. And so I'm not trying to tell the county how to do their job.

I'm not.

I just want to point out that it's because of the competitive nature of this grant, having someone that knows the correct buzzwords and terminology and phraseology, those sort of things to make the grant successful is pretty important. And we don't have one of them.

I will say that off the record, Scott Smithline, the manager of this program, told me that he tends to put more weight in someone from the county actually applying for it rather than a consultant. He tends to put more weight on that. But that's, he said that's off the record. So probably not gonna get him to say that.

So I mean, over, I've been here 13 years now. And I've applied along with the Forest Service on various other roads. And we've probably been unsuccessful about four times. There was a window before I came to the county where we had consultants and applied and did get grants. So, I mean, I've been in contact with the consultant to discuss the very issue, and they have been successful out of Helena for some counties of similar nature. It could be in the range of $10,000 to $25,000 to apply.

Just to be clear, I don't really think the road needs any work. I would like for this to be a tactic. so that the USPS perhaps comes to the table and does the proper thing, which is deliver mail to a bunch of elderly and disabled people and not have us all have to go down to the post office and get our mail.

Thank you, Ron. Are you finished with your presentation, then, for us? I am. Thank you. OK. With that, I will open for public comment. Please come to the podium, if you would. State your name for the record. and provide us with your public comment.

That's on when the red light is on. DANIEL NIXON My name is Daniel Nixon. My wife is Marlene. It was our property that the temporary postman rolled off toward the river. That road at its narrowest is 17 feet wide. It's in excellent shape, and it's straight as an arrow. Our postmaster used that accident as the focal point of her attack on our postal boxes. There is no way that anyone driving down a 17 foot wide road that's not potholed. It's just a good road. We drive on it all the time. Now, I don't drive on it. I took a mortar in the head and I'm blind on the left, so my wife drives. She has MS. When she feels good, she can drive me down to the post office. That usually happens every week or two. I'm sure a whole lot of the other people in this group are also disabled and find it very difficult to drive all the way down to Victor to get their mail, or nearly down to Victor to get some pathetic little box that doesn't have any of their flyers. I used to get one from Murdoch's too, but I don't get that one either. I find that disgusting. And I hope you guys take that into account. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your service as well. So my name is Travis Marsh. I live at 999 Bear Creek Trail. I'm the new general service manager of Sweet Pea Onsite. And I just took a little bit of time off work just to come in here and say that, number one, the road's never been in better shape. They just put six inches of lift on this road. They just mag chloride the entire road. That road's never been better than it has been in the past 15 years. The fact that this happened and then there was no notice, from anybody letting us know what was going on. It's just two weeks later, I'm like, why have we not gotten mail? I drive down to the post office and go, what happened to our mail? Oh, the driver got in a wreck, and now we're not servicing anymore, and we're going to do something different. Here, let me get your mail for you. Well, then I got a stack of mail, and there was a $300 check in there that got mixed up with everything from the hospital that owed us $300. Now that check's expired. Now I'm fighting with the hospital to get $300 back from them because I can't cash that check anymore because my mail was disrupted. Could have happened to anybody, not anybody else's problem but mine, but that's a problem that was caused with no notice, no notification, absolutely nothing. Temporary driver gets in an accident. I'd like to know was the accident investigated what happened with that accident? What was the fault of the accident as a? Now general manager of our service business I have actually cameras in my vehicles that camera knows when your seatbelts not on knows when your phones in your hand tells you to put your phone down knows if I'm looking off to the left and sitting there looking at my seat saying distracted driver Which, was this driver distracted? Would something like that help the post service for this type of situation? I don't know. I'm not here to, and I know you guys aren't here for any of that either. But there's other remedies for what's happened than canceling service for everybody. And one thing that I'm sure a lot of these voter folks that are here that have known some things, they've heard this before. Famous phrase that was always used for the post service. Neither snore, snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. But yet now we're going to have everybody canceled out because one guy got in an accident on a road with no investigation? Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Jim Marsh. I also live at 99 Bear Creek Trail. Lived in here about seven years now. Used to be a part of the group here advising the county on things. and also retired Forest Service. As a matter of fact, District Ranger and I went up that road just last year prior to them re-rocking the whole road and dust abating it and everything else for the purpose of risk reduction, logging, on a thing. And matter of fact, the first project is up that road. And as Travis mentioned, the road's never been in better shape. It's not a safety problem from the road standpoint. It's a driver problem. And so why penalize all the landowners for that problem? And so I would ask that the county at least get some conversation going, and the post office won't even talk to you or hasn't talked to you, it appears. And it's not a road problem. It's a postal problem. Thank you. Good to see you, Jim.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Marsh. I also live at 999 Bear Creek Trail. For one, this accident happened during midday, dry conditions, not even in icy weather. So to me, it seems like there was distraction, especially with this being a substitute driver and not our normal driver. I was the one who went to the post office when we hadn't gotten mail for weeks and asked, and I was told, well, It's just not safe deliverable. What is the solution? When will we get mail? We don't know. Can't give you a date. I do pay for a PO box because that was my choice to have a PO box for certain things to go to instead of being delivered to the house. I have repeatedly asked the post office to put the 999 Bear Creek Trail mail in my PO box that I pay for. On multiple occasions, I have gone to the PO box, nothing in there, gone up to the counter, had to wait in line to ask, is there any mail for us? And lo and behold, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, oh, yes, we do have mail. It just hasn't made it to your PO box yet. So they're not doing their job correctly, as far as I'm concerned, as far as delivering mail and getting it to the residents when they need it in a timely fashion. Secondly, even if we went to these little box cubbies, a lot of people have packages delivered that are not going to be able to fit in those boxes. We're still going to have to drive down to the post office to pick up any big postal packages that won't fit in those boxes. So it blows my mind that I cannot get a date from the postmaster for when the mail will continue. I can't get a resolution. I'm just being told, well, we've suggested, the county's denied. We don't know where it's going. And that's a very unprofessional response and explanation. especially from the U.S. Postal Service, who's supposed to deliver regardless. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Hi, my name's TC Pitter. I live on Bear Creek Trail. I've been there since 98. In the almost 30 years I've been there, I can personally say I know of four cars that have gone off the road, three of which the drivers were inebriated. It's not a road problem. As I said earlier, they can get the big trucks up there from Amazon, from FedEx, from UPS on a daily delivery, multiple deliveries daily. My thoughts are, unfortunately, the postal driver, I would think, he's driving from the right side of a car where it's got left-hand controls. My thoughts is he was probably driving like this, looked down the sorts of mail, and plump, off the side of the road. It's not a road problem. It was a driver problem. And as everybody said, our road's in better shape than it's been for decades. I think that most of us would prefer to see mail return to our mailboxes at the end of our driveways. This whole thing of us having to go chase it is absurd. Thank you very much. Thank you.

My name is Anthony. I live on the lower end of Bear Creek Trail.

And I just wanted to, whether this is relevant or not, when I spoke with the postmaster a time or two, the one conversation we had, she specifically said the car was traveling six miles an hour. The guy was going six miles an hour when he left the roadway, which I think, again, comes down to a distraction issue much rather than a road issue. I just don't think it's a road issue. So anyway, for what that's worth.

Good morning, my name is Matthew Spies, 1979 North Burr. And to answer one of your questions, I think our goal, one of our goals is to get a formal letter from the commissioners stating that Bear Creek Trail is fully maintained, county right of way, that meets safe operating standards. I think that would carry a lot of weight with the post office. And that the June 16th vehicle incident was caused by a carrier driver error, not an infrastructure defect or road maintenance failure. And again, we've discussed the POM 631.7, which is the postal codes, which the landowners have to approve a change in mail delivery, which no one has that. And Ron talked about the impact to the residents, the sudden stoppage, cutting off. veterans, disabled veterans for medical supplies, legal correspondence, and daily mail access. I've personally filed Office of Inspector General complaints and three Freedom of Information Act requests to basically get all that information about the accident reports that we haven't seen, none of the residents have seen, multiple years of correspondence from meters supervisors saying that they want to cut the mail delivery. So I've been trying to gather all this information, but all of it has been stonewalled, absolutely all of it. And so I've also been in contact with Zinke and Sheehy's office, feeding them all the updates of these requests, but they keep getting just pushed aside, coming up with excuses why they don't have to provide these recommendations or these requests, and then also trying to charge money when they're past the 20 days of when they have to get me that information for the FOIA. So, and then possibly again with Ron, with the FLAP, if they had a reason for the road to be unsafe that we could maybe put up a guardrail or something, but They've had no reason or excuse to cancel the mail, so we don't know what to apply for or what to fix. Does the commissioners have any questions for me?

You cited a couple of regs that I didn't get written down.

Yes, the Postal Operation Manual, 631.7. And I think our lawyer probably has a lot more information on that as well. But there's a lot of regulations, ultimately, that the Postmaster and Victor has completely disregarded. And I think that's why we have a lot of legal standing to return our mail delivery. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is John McKenna. My address is 1908 North Wayne Road, which is a little short private cul-de-sac that comes off of Bear Creek Trail just east of Griswold Lane, which is another private lane. Everybody has their mailboxes out on Bear Creek Trail. There are a couple of points I'd like to make. The Postal Service is insisting on installing the CBUs, a collective mailbox, but they don't have any means of providing the location for the box. And the only way that that could happen, since everything outside of Bear Creek Trail easement right away is private land, and the only way that anything could be constructed would have to go through a condemnation process to compensate the private property owner providing the space to install one of these. Aside from that, the fact, as has already been stated, is one, the postmaster failed to communicate adequately and in due process and in time, When I discovered it, I went down and spoke with her, and at that time she said that this solution would in fact be permanent, that she was engaged in conversations with the county, the road department, to ascertain locations, possible locations, and apparently there had some conversation between she and either Mr. Horvat or his assistant, is that Lee?

It's me.

Okay, no, but I also talked to another, one of your other people in your department.

Oh, yeah, Robert.

All right, I forgot. All right, so, but she said that, one, it was a permanent solution and it was because the road was unsafe. And I've visited with her half a dozen times since then left my name and phone number asking for her to relay that to her superiors because i i could never get any information beyond the local victor postmaster she was saying well it's not my decision it's my not just my superior but there's two or three levels above when i found out i contacted commissioner hulls we had a conversation on the phone and then i Subsequently, I think the next day or two, emailed him a report based on what I had discovered in my conversation with the postmaster. The fact of they haven't specified their criteria for declaring that the road is unsafe. She maintains that position but provided no specifics that would that would support that claim. There's no reason the post office shouldn't live up to their obligation and duty as a public service and continue to deliver mail to every private mailbox up Bear Creek Trail as they do right now. Anything else is they're just blowing smoke and they're not doing their job.

Thank you. Thank you, John.

Tom Sanders, 810 Bear Creek Trail. I've just got one quick question. You guys need to add the garbage trucks go up that road. And you know how big they are. And they have no trouble going up there. I think you mentioned there was two locations that you had recommended for those boxes. We'd like to know what those two locations were, where they were actually going to be put that you recommended.

I think my boss is going to put that on the board.

Ron Worth's property. Pardon?

Because I think one of them, you and I touched base, one of them was right across from my driveway. And I'm one of the unusual ones. I have a two-way driveway, which would turn into the U-turn that everybody would be making if that spot was selected. So I think if it gets to the point where there has to be some locations selected. I think the group here should be involved in agreeing to that location. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Leslie Donovan, 953 Bear Creek Trail. That's Sourdough Shack. You might know where that is. Anyway, I just wanted to start with basics. If It's already been requested that the county not allow easements additional for these CBUs. I'd kind of like to add to that. My background is manufacturing, and usually you have to show a failure analysis or some sort of past process, current, future to prove your point. And like everyone has said, we have seen nothing. And I would like to add to the county not giving access for this, also putting, if they could, that come up with your training program because when I've talked to them, they said, we trained them for six months and we trained them for, okay, where's the training records? Where's your procedure? What's your process? Can we see what you've done? Maybe the problem is there. And it's not to affix blame, it's to solve the problem. So if we can kind of keep the emotion out and personalities, I think we might do better. Stick with the facts. What's your training? Can we see it? Is there training? Did you say that there was training? Okay, then what is it? So, My request is simple. Let's get down to the failure analysis here. And they have to show proof of what happened. That's all I wanted to add. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. Unless there's anybody else. To me, I mean, this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to an accident. Accidents happen. People drive off the road. Hell, once in a while, a county truck goes off the road. It's not a training issue. I mean, it's human nature. Sometimes accidents happen, and it is what it is. I think we should write a letter to the post office requesting they deliver mail up there. I think there's roads that are in Worst condition, I would say, I don't know. I've been up Bear Creek for a long time. I have been to the trailhead, and it's a solid road. So I guess with that, I'd make a motion to temporarily deny the easement for the CBU and to write a letter requesting mail service to the CBU.

I'll second the motion. And I want to say, this is maybe the first time we've had a meeting about a road. that we haven't heard, this is the worst road in Ravalla County. We appreciate that. That is true, Commissioner Chilton.

The county takes good care of it, even in the winter. Thank you. You guys are hearing this, right?

Oh, we're hearing it. My hearing aid just shut off.

I don't know. We have a motion and a second on the floor. It's been moved and seconded to provide a letter to the post office requesting reinstatement of delivery, and to temporarily ban and easement access for CBU. TODD BANDUCCI- Deny. TODD BANDUCCI- Deny. Excuse me. Is there any public comment on that motion? For the discussion? Question, Jeff. Aye. And Greg. Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you all for coming. Did you need to say something?

Matthew Spieth. I just wanted to add a comment for the record, a conversation that I had with the employees and the postmaster. The Postmaster General has stated publicly many times in past years how they have a deficit, large deficit. If all their debt was due, they would not be able to pay these bills. So in lieu of that, when we were discussing the centralized box units when I was at the Victor Post Office, I said this is very poor choice to spend probably $15,000 on these CBUs when you don't have the money to pay your bills currently. And the response I received was, we already have these boxes. They've already been purchased. They're in storage. So it's nothing to them to install them.

TODD BANDUCCI- So I do want to make sure that everybody understands, as a decision maker that's had to sit there and make some of these hard decisions when it comes down to budget, I mean, we've made decisions that have had communities here on the other side where i mean they're in here telling us our roads in horrible shape and all these things and we've had to make those decisions so uh i am a little empathetic with the postal service when when budgets get tight and you have to decide when you don't have the money to provide services sometimes you have to make those decisions i hope we can work with them to bring mail services back there but i just want to make sure that we're not it's not going to do any good to harangue those folks and go nuclear on the Postal Service folks. They're trying to do the best that they can, and I think it's unfair to criticize them too much. I mean, criticize them where needed, but we don't need to go overboard on going after the Postal Service.

CHRIS JERRAMSEN.

Tom Sanders, one final question. Since we got a great road now, really, seriously, the speed limit of the people driving down that road has gone up considerably. And I contacted the road commission and asked them about putting some signs up, reducing 35, whatever. And I was advised that the county or the commissioners don't approve signs, speed limit signs, on gravel roads. Well, don't go down Meridian, because you have speed limit signs on Meridian, and it's a gravel road. But it's something we would like to consider, since it is such a great road now. The speed limit's gone up considerably, because it's not posted.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there any further public comment? Thank you. Thank you.

Pause for a few minutes.

Pause for a few minutes. Okay. Okay, we will reconvene with a new and possible decision on a purchasing policy.

This has been reviewed by the county attorney and our chief financial officer.

Do you have anything for us, Jana?

No, I was just updating it. You guys had this, we had this meeting back in March. Yeah, beginning of the year. Yeah, and we just, you updated some of those numbers to fit with code, like changing the dollar. Just those two changes?

Yeah. $15,000 for micro-purchase and $50,000 for the bid bond.

And it changed that $80,000, changed that. threshold for the bid one to $80,000, which matches the code.

Mr. Chairman, move to adopt and approve resolution 4818. We're sending resolution 4442 regarding the purchasing policy update. Second. Second.

No, 4818 to rescind 4442. Okay.

To approve resolution 4818 to replace 4442. Is there any public comment on that? Or is there discussion? Call for the question, Greg. Aye. Jeff. Aye. And I vote aye as well. Purchasing policy is done. Would you grab one of those for me, too, Jeff? Thank you.

I've got it on here. I just was going to keep both in case sometimes the tracking changes.

Oh, we're getting a little bit of that reverb, aren't we?

A little bit. OK, we will reconvene. And what we have is a public hearing on the...

Turn your volume down just a little bit on that box. I think that's where it comes from. There you go.

Sound better now? Public hearing to amend the Reveille County subdivision regulations. Is that better?

Yes, it is better.

There's still some... How about that? Better? Yes.

Skips here.

Well, we made some adjustments today. So this is the first run with the adjustments. New settings. Yeah, new settings. It's work in progress.

So commissioners, for the record, this public hearing was noticed in the newspaper of record September 2nd and September 9th. I would like to also point out that the legal ad includes Commissioners will continue to accept public comment in writing through October 2nd, 2026 at 5 p.m. And the commissioners will continue today's public hearing to Tuesday, October 13th, 2026 at 11 a.m. All right, and what we are working on today is Chapter 11, Divisions of Land Exempt from Subdivision Review.

And so I think what we should do is just start going through the document. Madison?

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners. So following changes in the Montana Subdivision Plotting Act legislation since 2012 and public input, we're proposing revising the regulations as they pertain to exemptions. As advised by Chris, the proposed exemption chapter has been made available to the public for review and comment. So we'll just start on page one and go through it. For this chapter, we're going to be predominantly in Montana Code Annotated 76, or 76.3.201 and 76.3.207, although there's going to be some reference to other fun places, but That's where the meat and potatoes of this lies. Before we get there, and in kind of the introduction, 76.3.504 requires that subdivision regulations establish criteria that the governing body or reviewing authority will use to determine whether the method of disposition using exemptions in 201 and 207 is an attempt to evade the Montana Subdivision and Plotting Act. Regulations must provide for an appeals process to the governing body if the reviewing authority is not the governing body. And that's what we're doing here today. So there's an introductory statement that outlines that paragraph that I, that statement that I just read and diving into 11.1.1. the examination process. The planning department shall review an application for an exemption, and the BCC will review any appeals of decisions by the planning department. Any questions?

Is there any questions on that? OK.

I do have one.

All right.

Appeal from the public.

I would read that as an appeal from the applicant.

That's a good question, Penny, and the appeals process will be down later when we get to it. But great question. So 11.1A, general submittal administrative procedures and appeals. So first we're going to dive into the submission requirements or submittal requirements. So if you're a landowner and you're claiming an exemption of county review, you're going to submit the following. A draft certificate of survey plat or draft instrument of conveyance and evidence of entitlement to the claimed exemption, which I don't believe is any different from what we do now, correct?

Yeah. And just to clarify, a draft doesn't mean stakes in the ground. You know, a lot of times a surveyor will create a draft certificate of survey. They'll present it and we'll look at it. And it doesn't mean like a fully, like a preliminary plat for a subdivision. So I just want to make that clear.

The next requirement is based on legislative updates. And that's for boundary line relocation, family transfers, and agricultural exemptions. Those are exemptions outlined in 207. We're going to require the affidavit from the applicant setting forth the intentions, including one that the proposed use of the exemption is not for the purpose of evasion. Chairman, should I keep going? I'm on page two now.

I think so. Is there any questions on anything so far? Penny.

Legislative intent was the affidavits were to be prepared by the Attorney General's office so that there was one affidavit statewide. The original one was redrafted, and it's only on family transfers.

Penny, I'm in receipt of the Attorney General's affidavit, but the code says that the affidavit applies to the exemptions under the chapter. So out of an abundance of caution, we are following what the legislature has codified by utilizing the affidavit for all exemptions under the chapter, as is written. If the legislature would like to clean that up for us, we would be happy.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Where spouses are jointly gifting a parcel, each grantor is required to fill out an affidavit.

Meaning both husband and wife?

Correct.

Separate or together?

Separate Alfred Davids. And then it goes into what a complete subdivision exemption application form looks like and what it requires. So we have the application form. We have a property diagram. We have a title report, and that's a new title report dated within one year of the subdivision exemption application. Documentation to rebut the presumption of evasion under the review principles of this chapter, and any other documentation necessary to satisfy the requirements of the requested exemption.

Any questions or comments on that? Please go to the microphone.

Your microphone's not on. Come on. Push the little button. There you go.

My name is Carmela Bounds. I live in Riverside Crossing in Hamilton. I have a question on 4, sub 4. The way I read that where it says a documentation to rebut the presumption of evasion is that that means there is a presumption of evasion in this, and it would be the applicant's obligation to rebut that affirmatively with documentation each time. The way, I mean, the way four reads, it reads, it says there is a presumption of evasion.

I would, will we define evasion later in the chapter and maybe when we get to that?

Well, I don't think it's the evasion. It's the presumption that I was surprised to read about because that imposes an affirmative obligation on the applicant to rebut that presumption.

And by submitting an affidavit saying that they're not going to is that's what the legislature has codified as to submit, to rebut the presumption of evasion.

So in place of documentation, you're saying the affidavit that's submitted is the documentation to rebut that presumption? Correct. But that there is a presumption then that the, that there is evasion and the burden is on the applicant.

It is not our intention to assume that individuals utilizing their legislative right as codified in code, that they're using family transfers for evasion. No, that's not the county's position. And we may need to look at that provision.

It just seems to me it's a little bit ambiguous. Thank you.

Is the term presumption of evasion anywhere in statute? Or where did we get that?

In the common law and in the overall statutes, there will be a definition of presumptions and who, and basically a presumption is a burden-shifting obligation.

Carmelo, if we change the presumption to a presumption, any documentation about a presumption, if there is one that exists rather than the presumption, would that make any difference to you?

I'm sorry, I missed the beginning of what you said, Commissioner.

It currently reads any documentation to prove, to rebut the presumption of evasion. What if we change the to a? Any documentation to rebut the? CHRISTIE WOODARD- Yeah, I'd have to look at the statute.

But I'm sure your attorney can counsel you on that. But it seems like that would take care of it.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- And I think we need to look at this provision because it is my understanding we are not assuming that everyone's applying for is committing evasion.

Right, that's why I just thought it was strange language in there. No, it's a good catch.

Thank you.

I mean, I think this discussion, this warrants a little more discussion to get a full understanding, this presumption of evasion and the understanding of...

So I think one of the things when we get down to... Sir, please come to the microphone and identify yourself as well. My name is Andrew Cotero, and I think this intro thing then ties into a couple of the review principles. So when we look at review principle number four, the use of the exemption will have been presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading the MSA. Number five, review principle, same thing. Especially same thing too with number six so those would be I'm thinking why that would be upfront in the Documentation to be able to rebut some of these general principles Okay

Yeah, so in each of the respective family transfer boundary line, there are review principles. There are evasion criteria that we have delineated within each of the individual headings. So I believe it was our intention not that an individual had to rebut evasion with an application, but that if you don't meet the criteria or if it's flagged in the evasion process, you could submit documentation to rebut what's in the review criteria. But I do think in this review process that we do need to take a look at that statement.

Yeah, especially, sorry. Andrew Cotero, I think review principle number six is really, I think, one of the big ones. Are you within the family transfer?

Yes. Yeah, so it's page eight, number six.

So that one I think is really important because then, so if the landowner cannot show proof of ownership or title in the proposed division of land for two or more years prior to applying, so then they would be, somebody, even the public, could go look at the title on this piece of property and say, hey, are they applying for a subdivision exemption and they haven't owned the land for two years? So then the rebuttable presumption could kick in to say, can you rebut why your regulation stating you have to own the land for two years, but yet you just bought the land and two weeks later you're filing for a family exemption? Thank you.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- OK, so I'll work on making 4-4. a little more clear to what was intended.

Thank you.

Number five, payment of the applicable fee set by the BCC pursuant to 2074B and 2016B. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did you go?

Where are you?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on page two, number five. We're still in the submission of the application. All right. So... 2074B and 2016B allows us to charge up to a fee of $400, and I would recommend increasing our fee schedule to that. That's not in the reg, but that's my side comment. The planning department as the designated agent of the BCC will review the application for completeness. So the landowner is going to submit the application and Rob and his planning department is going to determine whether it has all of the necessary components. And then if the planning department determines that the application is incomplete, they're going to identify the missing parts in writing and notify the applicant or the representative of their deficiency. And then if there is incompleteness, the planning department's not going to take further action on the application until the deficiency is cured. If the planning department determines the application is complete, the planning department shall proceed as outlined below. And I'll stop there.

Al, thank you. Al Babel, Corvallis. You mentioned a $400 application fee. Is that per lot or per the entire process?

It's per the application. In the planning office, yes.

In the planning office, thank you.

And it specifically reads, may establish reasonable fees not to exceed $400. Keep going? Yeah. OK. Planning department review. So the planning department's going to review the complete application, the affidavit, and the supporting documents. We're going to look to see if it complies, or the planning department will look to see if it complies with the requirements as set forth in the MSPA, and it's going to be approved or denied within 20 working days of receipt of the complete application with all the required information. And the planning department may request in writing an extension up to 20 working days.

You don't have... Yeah, an extension to.

Oh, an extension to the 20 working days, not up to. Sorry, you're right, 20. The planning department may request in writing an extension to the 20, unspecified time of extension. Pursuant to 201-6D and 207-4D, that's in the code, no conditions may be imposed on the approval except for conditions necessary to ensure compliance with survey requirements. If the application is approved by the planning department before any documents can be recorded with the clerk and recorder, The applicant or representative must submit a digital copy of the final survey plat to GIS so that they can verify that everything maps up accordingly. If there's a change to the final survey plat from what the draft certificate of survey or amended plat, the applicant needs to submit a new application for review, including fees. So a minor change is not necessary if it's only to ensure true and accurate lot configuration. However, if you're going to add or subtract parcels, if you're going to change family members, if you're going to change acreage of parcels or lots subject to zoning or covenants, that's a new application.

Chris.

For clarification, would flipping the lots from a remainder to a family transfer back and forth be a minor or a major change?

That'd be a minor. And where this stems from a lot is we approve something, we approve the configuration, and then it gets to clerk and recorder and it's different. And let's say, for example, there's a zoning district with acreage minimums and that change is then violated zoning. And so then we have to come back and basically rereview the application. And that's just extra staff time. And so we've kicked around the idea of doing like an amended application fee or something like that. But it's more common or not. And we recognize that. You submit a diagram. It's not perfect. When the surveyor goes out, they may have to make sure it's true and accurate. So it's not going to line up completely. But we've seen instances of like the resulting map is nothing like what we approved. Then our approval is not really what we're approving. So this is in order to kind of clean that up and just create a procedural process. and try to define what that change is. And so it's clear for applicants what a change would require a new application. So that's where this is coming from.

Penny?

Penny Hao. That's exactly what my question is. is sometimes when we do a DEQ, we may have to move a line in order to get a drain field all within the parcel. You might have to move a line 20 feet. Is that going to require a new application in order to meet the DEQ regulations?

If that parcel is subject to zoning or covenants and moving that line then makes the lot 0.01 acres over and it violates zoning, I mean, that's what we see.

Yeah, I understand that, but I'm talking about just on general, unzoned, no covenants, and we move the line 20, 25 feet to the east because when they finally do the DEQ, that's the only place for the drain field to go. Is that going to require a new process?

Would you like me to answer that? Yes, please. So the short answer is yes, if there's zoning or covenants that talk about acreages. If there's not, so that's what we said, changing acreages of parcels, which is what you're talking about. Yes. When they're subject to zoning and covenants. So if there's no zoning or covenants.

But it doesn't say when. It says subject to zoning or covenants. It says or lots subject to zoning.

I guess, or changing acreage of parcels or lots subject to zoning or covenants.

Parcels or lots.

So we're using parcels or lots as kind of, within the document, it's referred to as parcels or lots.

I understand. But this is just a clarification I think we need to make now.

So it's changing acreage of, let's say, divisions of land subject to zoning or covenants. I'm just referring to them as parcels or lots.

I understand that. But I can see somebody coming in and saying, because I'm doing a lot and not in a zoned area, doesn't have covenants for minimums, because a lot of these will do, that we just violated because I'm trying to meet, I've had to move the lot line. 50 feet to incorporate the DQ.

But I think what it's saying here, Penny, is subject to zoning or covenants. That's part of the sentence. So that's the qualifier for that.

Remember that when it comes up.

I always do. I know.

But it would be after you're gone.

That's what's intended, though, is that we, you know, We understand there's changes, like you go through review. And the last thing that we want is that a survey is recorded that violates a zoning district. And even a small change at the end can create that. And so that's why that language is there. And if people want to propose a reword that makes more sense or you're more comfortable with, I don't care. That's just why we have that in there.

Thank you, Rob.

Keep moving forward.

Keep on.

If the application is denied, the applicant may. So you can always initiate a process to apply for subdivision review subject to our subdivision regulations. You can appeal the planning department's decision, and you can go to the BCC. and then we make a statement that denials will be sent via certified mail with return receipt.

Anybody have anything on that?

I would say the applicant. The applicant, I would say.

Okay to move forward, Chairman?

Yes, ma'am.

If the Planning Department denies an application, the applicant may appeal the decision to the BCC. The appeal request shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Department within 10 working days of the denial. The BCC shall hold a public hearing to consider the appeal within 20 working days of the Planning Department receiving written request of the appeal. If the BCC concludes that the application should be approved, the applicant will comply with everything we talked about above. If the BCC denies the application, the applicant may submit a preliminary plot application for the proposed division of land. You can always go through subdivision review.

Madison, do we have to do a hearing? Can we just do a public meeting?

No, we need to do a public hearing.

Can we do a public hearing in 20 days?

That was my question.

I don't know that we can do one, get it advertised, the timing and getting it in a paper of record.

I think we can make it happen. Six days and six days?

Well, for example, if Penny's subdivision exemption got denied today, and she had 10 days to... Get back to planning. Is that 10 working days? So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. She'd have to submit her appeal by October 1st. Then we would have to do the legal ad. We'd send it on the 7th to print 1421 to have it on 22.

Well, we have 20 days after we receive her appeal. After we receive her appeal. I just.

So we can schedule a meeting if we receive it on the 1st.

Oh, I don't have to email the legal right away. We have 20 working days to get to that point. Is that correct?

We have 20 working days, yes, after receipt of the appeal request.

Do we have water?

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that's statutory.

I'm just thinking that means... That's a pretty tight window. Potentially you schedule it for the week where it may go if that were to... I mean, that's pretty tight because you pretty much have that next five days that week after we do the legal hearings. And if that's a week that, like next week or the week after when we're all at MAKO, that could cause a problem.

Okay. I can look into if we have some wiggle room.

We have 20 days to complete the examination, approve or deny the applications. Where are you at right now? 76, 3, 2, 0, 1, sub 6a. Excuse me. Yeah. No. Not a, not a. C, sub 6c.

That looks like the application itself, right? Not an appeal?

That's what I saw, the 20 days. Oh, here we go. That's under town, home, condominium.

So if Penny, using my example, if Penny had to submit her appeal by October 1st, we actually would have one.

We would publish on the 7th and the 14th for a meeting on the 19th.

We can't publish on the 7th and the 14th for a meeting on the 19th because if she submits on October 1st, Well, I guess we could, but the planning department and myself would have to be on the ball and send the legal ad on Friday the 2nd to print 7 and 14.

It's too tight.

Yeah.

Okay. I'll look to see if it's, shall complete the examination and approve or deny the application for division within 20 working days of receipt of the application containing all materials.

That's the original application though, right?

Not the appeal.

Not the appeal. Yeah, I think we aligned it with that 20 working days. I mean, 20 working days is a month. It's, it's, we, we, that's what we review under. It is tight for sure. If there's not a specific requirement for it to be 20, it makes sense to make it a little bit longer, but we also don't, it is nice to have timeframes. So the applicant gets a response. So I think that if there's a, flexibility to have it be a little bit longer, that's fine, but we could do it in 20 working days.

And we're talking about working days, not calendar days. Right.

20 days is done again in 76.3207, 20 work days again, but it's specific to the application.

Where is the requirement for a hearing?

For an appeal?

Yeah. Because we don't do, I mean, maybe this one has specifics, but I don't know any other appeal that we do through it. noticed public hearing versus just a scheduled public meeting.

Rob, when you have denials and actual subdivision are you do you they get a hearing or is it a meeting great question um we can look at the subdivision regulations and i think that that is why we're because we're denying and we're going to that chapter for um the hearing requirement as well as the noticing requirement

That's 15 calendar days. Oh, wait.

This is under Chapter 11, which is our existing chapter. It says we have a hearing. The noticing just has to happen 15 calendar days prior. There's just blank pages everywhere. Not sure what that's about. It's just taking some time to catch up. We just deleted all these pages, I guess. I don't know why 54 isn't showing up. But we can look into it. I mean, I believe that I know under the subdivision regulations chapter or regulation statute, there's a section that addresses appeals. And so we will bring that forward next time and make sure that whatever information's in the appeals is supported by statute. And if it's not, then we can leave it up to the discretion of the board to decide what the appeal process should be.

I'd like to change it to a meeting instead of an appeal or a hearing if we can. Okay, we'll look into it. It just gives us more flexibility.

Yeah, because I'm looking at 76.3.605, which are hearing on subdivision application, which an exemption is arguably different, but that chapter is pivoting you to a hearing versus a meeting. So I will look in to see if we can... Sounds good. Switch it to a meeting.

I have a question, though. On the 10 working days of the planning department's written denial, we're sending a certified return receipt. That takes a few more days in the government. I just sent a mail from Lolo to Helena, and it took five, a whole week to get there. We're taking, if this is only 10 working days for the denial, the applicant who's been denied, it could be not even in their possession yet within that 10 working days. We're depending, we're incorporating what the federal government does. And this was not a return receipt thing. I dropped it in Lolo a week ago today, and I got notification today that they just got it. So we're cutting...

You can email Rob. That's in writing.

Okay. Well, I'm just saying is that we're talking about... Yeah.

We're putting the onerous on us that we need to send it via certified receipt that we're going to send to you.

But is it going to also be sent email? If it's also being sent email, that's not a problem. But if it takes 10 days for this applicant to even know that... And some of these applicants are out of state. They go south for the winter, whatever.

Just change it to the return receipt date. Thank you. Yeah, that gives you 10 extra days.

That's all I'm, yeah, that'll work. Because just if we don't get it, then it could end up the 10 days.

There's never an issue with the postal service.

And how many people are here this morning?

Yeah.

Okay, where am I adding return receipt? 10 working days of the return receipt?

A, I believe.

Yeah, the appeal request shall be submitted in writing to Planning Department with 10 working days of the Planning Department's written denial. We're sending out the written denial via return receipt and F3. So we would just change written receipt of the Planning Department's written denial.

Thank you.

And we'd have documentation of the date and time that they receive it on return receipt.

Okay. There was no more confusing way to say that than what you just said.

So we're just going to add, we're adding within 10 working days of the return receipt, of the date of the return receipt.

Yes.

On section A. Receipt.

Yeah, so when we send out a return receipt envelope, when the recipient gets that, they have to sign and it has to be dated in time. From that date forward, they have 10 days from that time. So upon receipt of the return receipt. Okay.

On planning department receipt, the return receipt, because if you sign that day, I may hold it for a week before I get to the post office, even though I signed it.

Recipient.

As the applicant.

Presuming so, yeah.

So you're saying 10 days from the date the planning department receives the signed receipt date? Because otherwise somebody can hold on to it.

This certified mail provision is really causing some problems.

The appeal request has to be submitted within 10 working days, right? We're all in agreement. That's what it says. And the debate is whether when that 10-day proof starts. What I'm suggesting is This is under F3. It says the denials will be sent via certified mail with return receipt. So when the applicant or their designee gets the letter, they sign that it's been received. That's when the clock starts ticking for 10 days. And you think that doesn't work. Why does that not work?

Because I go to the book.

I go to the post office and pick it up. I sign. I returned it October. I signed. I picked it up October 1st. I don't necessarily send that back October 1st.

Post office would send it.

The post office.

Okay, so it's taken care of that way. But then if there's a delay, the way things go now where it goes from Missoula, it goes from Hamilton to Missoula to Billings back to Missoula.

But that doesn't matter. The recipient has to sign that they received it.

That's when the 10 days start. So if it takes five days for it to go to Missoula and Bozeman and gets lost and gets sent to Phoenix.

Okay, so if the planning department never receives it. No issue.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

But we're just at, instead of just applicant, you just said our representative.

Well, I'm just, because you pick up the mail for Jimmy, vice versa. I guess that's, but that's on, that's on who's picking up the mail, right?

That's okay. Yeah.

Is everybody clear?

As much.

And I don't know how that works. Do you guys know?

We're going to take a look at this certified mail provision and the time frame. We'll get some clarity.

What's more important is the merits of the denial than the damn time frame. Like, who cares 10 days or 11 days? Like, let's just hear it, the denial, and make a decision, not making a bigger deal out of the appeal time than we should.

Okay, we can move on.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, we got a public comment. Alan Mackey, I just have a quick question on that. Exactly. How does that work with if the state, I mean the state statutes are saying 10 days and then you're basically saying 10 days, how much wiggle room is there to get out of it? If you can show that it's a time crunch or whatever, like what do you have to do on your end to make it more stringent?

Get the legislature to change it. If it's in statute, we have to follow it. We just haven't, we're not clear on the 20 days if that applies to this or not. That's the question, right? Correct. So, We're going to have people a lot smarter than me verify that that 20 days is, if that applies to this, it applies in other areas for the application. But the denial, I couldn't find anything. And we're going to look for that and see what that time frame is. Okay, thanks. But we can't change state law because it's inconvenient.

Did that answer your question? No, and I didn't mean that, but I thought that there might be a, like if you hold a public hearing that you want to make something more stringent, that that is actually an ability to do that, but you have to have data and whatnot to back it up. Is that correct?

So right now it is the most stringent. It is pulling from the other chapter to give the most stringent and what it sounds like is almost an impossible timeline for with noticing requirements. So I don't see it becoming less stringent than what I've currently, I just need to verify if this is, if we have to follow this other process.

Yeah, and I guess that was kind of my question, if the local government actually has a mechanism have a public hearing if they wanted to make something more stringent as long as the conditions were met to have a public hearing and have data on it and peer-reviewed data on it.

So you're talking about making the timeline tighter than 20 days? Is that what you mean?

Okay, I understand.

Okay.

Yeah, no, I was not. So I was exactly inverse of what I was thinking. Thank you for correcting me.

Oh, I didn't know. I'm a little confused. Yeah, thank you. Okay. I still am a little confused. Can you clarify?

No, I was thinking that if it was longer, then that would be more stringent than the the, State's version.

Longer would be less. I guess it depends on where you're listening.

I guess at what side of the table you're sitting on. For us, it's very stringent because we're operating within a realm of noticing and sending it to the news, getting it out to the public. So it's a time crunch for us, so we look at it as stringent. It might be inverse if you're on the other side.

The way you could probably argue is the legislature wanted timely processing of these so you weren't delaying it for the applicant. So if they had a time frame in statute that says 20 days to... Usually if you have applicant... concurrence it's not a big deal like we would always do that if the applicant said hey could you give me 10 more days to review like that's a no-brainer that we should be able to do that whether statute like allows it or not if there's concurrence there but it's when we can't meet the time frames and then we're gone for a week to make or whatever it's like oh we've now gone 22 working days you know we've technically violated that That's just the concern with the hearing is with those seven days between hearing notices, 20 working days can put you really tight. It's a tight window. So are there appeals anywhere in statute on exemptions? Or is there an assumption?

Yes, you can appeal to the governing body.

So there is an assumption in statute that there's a different reviewing authority than the governing body?

So statute allows us to designate an agent or vest authority into a reviewing body with the governing body to hear the appeals of the reviewing authority. That is 5041P. 76. 76.35041P. 5041P. Sorry, 1OP.

We're considering these the same, the subdivision regulations the same as the evasion criteria or the exemption review?

It's right here, 1P. The regulations must provide an appeal process to the governing body if the reviewing authority is not the governing body. So the planning department's the reviewing authority. We're setting the appeal process. Where is that at?

It's 76- I know, but I'm looking for- 76-3-504-1P.

So that's what we're talking about is setting our appeal process.

So, yeah, I mean, that's pretty broad latitude.

Yeah, and we're trying to have an appeal process that is timely and orderly, so- The county doesn't sit for six months on a denial to say, yeah, we'll schedule it later. So it's holding our feet to the fire, this whole process that we are already on.

If the 20 days isn't by a statute, I would suggest that we make it longer.

Yeah. I think we were just mirroring that off of the 20 working days for the review time frame.

Yeah, from receipt of the application. Yeah. So the way that I read it was if we are designating the planning department as the agent and the agent has to approve or deny the application within 20 working days of receipt of the application, the same logic would apply to the governing body who is going to look at an appeal. However, that's not necessarily, I'm going to look into if whether that assumption is correct.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, one P gives us a pretty broad line. It does. And I would.

And then it talks about an appeals process, which is different than the approval process. So we could say. Correct. Our appeals process gives us 30 days. Yeah. Perfect.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Everybody clear?

Are we having fun yet is the question.

Move on to the next one.

So next, we're going to move. Oh, and so I already stated the last one. So if the BCC denies the application, it can always go through subdivision review. Always an option. Next is exemption review principles. We talk about the general requirements for exemptions. A, all parcels or lots and the use of all parcels or lots created or amended using an exemption shall comply with applicable zoning regulations except as provided herein. If you're going to alter a lot that was created by subdivision review, any resulting lots must comply with the standards of the most recently approved subdivision.

The most recently approved subdivision of that parcel.

Of the governing body. So if the board is going to approve a subdivision, and then I'm going to come in and use an exemption to reconfigure something in that subdivision, it's going to have to comply with whatever you just approved.

In that particular subdivision. Correct. I could see where somebody could read this and say, well, Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

I've read these things, I couldn't tell you how many times, at least three. And I saw that as soon as this time.

Do you want me to change something? Yeah. What would you like changed?

It says, shall comply with the design standards of the most recently approved subdivisions. So say we did one horse estates yesterday. Okay. You'd have to comply with that. So we would just have to make sure to put the applicable subdivision that they're in within the.

Within. Yeah.

Of that. The parent subdivision.

Of that parcel of that. The parent subdivision. Yeah, if there was. Yeah. Not the research.

You don't want everyone to have lots like one horse estates is what I'm. Got it. I will make the change.

Thank you.

Can you go to the microphone, please, Al?

Would it not clarify it if we took out the word the and put in that?

Yes.

Very good, Al. Thank you.

Thank you. You're getting your steps in today. All divisions of land must comply with 401 where the law requires it. So this has to do with survey requirements for land divided after July 1, 74, parcels less than 20 acres. So that's where we're getting that one. In the next section, there's a typo. It should say except as provided in capital E and F. And I would recommend putting below my apologies. And for D and F, we're going to talk about that's the taxes. County treasurer needs to certify that all real property taxes levied and special assessments have been paid. If taxes applicable are not identified in the tax assessment, the Montana Department of Revenue shall prorate the taxes applicable to the land being divided. The owner must ensure that the prorated taxes and assessments are paid on the land being sold before the division of land is paid, is made, sorry, and prorated tax may be accepted as partial payment. And all of those are found in code okay any questions or concerns there we get another meeting on this penny so well i'm going to run it by charity too james rummel

I just have a question about this because it's very confusing to me. We built a home two years ago. We moved into it. We just got our tax bill. So it is the county, I know that's up through the state, but it's troubling to me that, I mean, I don't mind not paying my property tax, but I've been paying on that lot for two years and living in a home. And I think that's a large sum of revenue that is missing, not only in the state, but in the county. We pointed that out to the state on more than one occasion. Okay. Good deal. That's all I wanted to know. But it's ridiculous. I mean, yeah, do I want to pay more for my... But it's only fair that I pay for it.

We accept checks if you want.

No, I'm not going to do that. But it's ridiculous. I mean, it's a total of two years without a tax bill? Yeah. Great.

Thank you, Jim.

We've had them go longer than that, too. It's nuts. What's crappy for the landowners in some cases when they miss that for a number of years and then they come back and try and retroactively collect? That's not right either. It's not.

All right.

All right.

Move on. Move on?

Move on.

Okay. Family transfer exemption. Okay. General requirements. So you must submit the complete application, the corresponding documents, affidavit, and the applicable fee. And I've tried to summarize it. Yeah, I can read it verbatim if you'd like. It's on the board. It is also on the board. I've tried to summarize it as best as I can. A recipient can only acquire one parcel or lot through a family transfer within a single county during their lifetime?

Wait to talk till you get to the microphone. I'm talking out loud to myself.

Pull the microphone down. There you go.

Yeah. But doesn't state law say, I'm just going to use Greg and Chris. Let's say that they're husband and wife. Sorry, Chris. Ouch. But if I was their child and they have different pieces, and they had different pieces of property, I thought the state law says I can get one piece from my dad and one piece from my mom.

We are interpreting 76.3207.1b to say. Is it B? Yep. Divisions made outside of plotted subdivisions for the purpose of a single gift or sale in each county to each member of the landowner's immediate family. One gift to each member. So member gets single gift.

But I have more immediate family.

Got to put some sideboards on family transfers.

I disagree, because that's how people are doing their estate buying.

OK. Keep going? Keep going.

Conveyance may be jointly owned with that immediate family member's spouse This exempt division may be made outside of a plotted subdivision or within a subdivision that has been approved by the BCC. To use this exemption, we're defining, actually, statute defines immediate family member as spouse, child by blood or adoption, and or parent of the grantor. The landowner and immediate family member must be natural persons, so no corporations or trusts. Any certificate of survey or amended plat that uses this exemption shall be accompanied by the instrument of conveyance, such as a deed, your COS or your amended plat. or recording instrument using the exemption must show the name of the grantee, the relationship to the landowner, the parcel to be conveyed under this exemption, and the landowner's certificate of compliance, comma, add a comma, and must comply with 411 and the arms, which has to do with surveying requirements.

Any questions or concerns on that?

Move on. So we're talking a division of land outside of a plotted subdivision that's also located in a zoning district will be allowed if the lot created by the division and any remaining parcel is at least five acres, unless the zoning district allows for smaller parcels or lot sizes.

And this is at a statute, and this was a 2023 change by Jason Ellsworth. So if you have a zoning district with 10-acre parcels, we have to approve lot sizes of five acres. So just be aware. This is at a statute. It's not something Ravalli County is coming up with.

Did he make that change in prison?

That's state statute, okay.

Yep, 76.3207.2C. Lovely. If the exempt division creates lots within a subdivision, and I should say that should probably be platted subdivision, right? Yeah. The lot sizes must be of a size allowed, whether imposed by the BCC or through private covenant. Further restriction or requirement on the plotted subdivision continues to apply to any parcel created by division, whether imposed by the BCC or by private covenant.

That's also from statute. Correct.

Our general requirements are all found in statute. If there's any question about that, we're not trying to hide. Pulled it from statute. A conveyance using the family transfer exemption may be made regardless of age. If you're going to transfer to a minor, it must comply with the Uniform Transfers to Minor Act, and that's 76.3207.2d. An immediate family member or the spouse of an immediate family member who receives a division of land under this exemption may not transfer or convey for a period of up to two years after the date of the division. So there's a two-year holding period to sell the divisions.

That's the... That's only for...

The remainder, correct. Statute does not put a hold on the remainder.

And the governing body can set a period less than two years, too, per statute?

Yes, we can. It used to be three years. The legislator has dropped it down to two years and gives us the deference to make it only hold for one year. And we've would like, you know, two years.

James Rommel. Hey, I, okay. So this is where, this is where the rub completely comes, right? Is this a state statute that, that regardless of age,

Yes, 763-207-2D.

So that's a state law.

Yeah.

Because we could clean up a lot of stuff if we didn't do that. Because the whole, that's a state issue, but the whole reason to have a family transfer is abused right here.

I think we need to talk to our legislature. Yeah.

Point of clarification, a spouse, what if there's a divorce and the spouse ended up with the land in the divorce, who then they become, through the divorce, are no longer a blood relative?

I can answer that. So at the time of transfer, if you're married, that's what we're looking at. So we don't keep track of people's divorces.

Thank you, Rob.

So if you saw a pattern of marriage and divorce, marriage and divorce.

Richard Smith, one question that comes up, does the child or relative that you're transferring to have to be a citizen in the United States? Like, for example, my wife, I've been married to her for 40 years. She's from Australia. If she happened to have a child in Australia before we got married and now they come over here, can a parcel be transferred to them?

The statute doesn't specify US citizens.

Have you legally adopted the child?

Well, let's just take the situation of, like, someone was not born here. Right. Right. So we've seen that very rarely.

But, yeah, we see someone's birth certificate from Mexico or something like that because they meet the… It's not who owns land.

Not who they're transferring it to.

necessarily like i was a military kid i there's kids all over the world yeah you don't have to be born it's just familial relationship so you know as long as you're a blood child though we did have to draw the line when samway wanted to uh transfer to their unborn child literally happened yeah seriously i took the call

Okay, moving on. Okay, thank you, Chairman. So statute does put some guardrails on that two year transfer restriction. If you are, it doesn't apply if you're conveying an interest in land under a mortgage or trust indenture for the purpose of securing an obligation owed to another purpose or entity. It doesn't apply to transfer a conveyance of the land pursuant to a foreclosure sale or by deed in lieu of foreclosure. And it does not apply to a person or entity who acquires title to the division of land by purchase at a foreclosure sale or by deed in lieu of foreclosure.

Any concerns or questions there? Okay, moving on.

Review principles. So when reviewing an application in order to evaluate whether the applicant's use of the applied for exemption is for the purpose of evading, we have defined evasion as the attempted use of the exemption for which the applicant is not legally qualified.

My name is Andrew Cotero. So MCA 76-32071 still says a family transfer is exempt unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this chapter. So my question becomes, and I have a whole set of logic things, but how can legally qualified answer the question of purpose? I mean, I can continue on, but please do. Okay, sure. So the draft evasion says evasion means the use or attempted use of an exemption you're not legally qualified for. If we go put that back into MCA 76-3207, it reads a qualified division is exempt unless the applicant isn't qualified. Then the unless clause about the method of disposition is adopted for purpose of evading this chapter. Purpose is no longer working. Then if we continue on, we kind of think through this. If someone isn't qualified, planning department denies the application. So an unqualified use never happens. What's left is an unqualified attempt, which the chapter already handles. That's a denial with an appeal right that they can appeal. So evasion would describe either something that can occur or something that already has a name and a process. And then in statute 76.3.207.7a applies after initial approval. Anyone approved was qualified and under this definition, therefore not evading. The state's enforcement provision would have nothing left to reach. So how is 2076.307, 32077A working? Because it explicitly states after initial approval. It just seems like the definition doesn't really work. with these two state laws. That's what I think.

Allen Mackey, member of the public. I am very much following Mr. Katerra on that one. I have the exact same concerns that in this version We're just making evasion a word that means nothing. And I understand that the state statutes, if you look at them for evasion for subdivision evasion or for exemption of subdivision evasion, then the state statutes, there's not really a good definition of evasion.

So now we're- There's no definition of evasion. Which is not a good definition. Yeah.

So now we're making up our own version, which is worthless, to make the whole document worthless. And I think that the county definitely needs to look very hard at coming up with something that actually makes the document worth something. And I'll actually go back really quick here, just in case we're trying to rewrite laws only for Ravalli County. Gallatin County and Missoula County and Cascade County and Yellowstone County and other counties that have some growth and urban centers and whatnot. Most of them have their well, they all have their own existence. do because that's required by state statutes. You're not just allowed just to only have the state review. You have to have your own, even if you make it verbatim to the state still has to be your own, right? So, um, have we looked at, at what they've legally got away with for the definition of evasion or how they look at evasion or rebuttable circumstances or, or, um, take for example, um, looking at effects on the seven criteria as our old, or not our old, our current version has in Ravalli County that we can look at the effects on seven criteria, patterns of exempt transactions, the nature of claimant's business is one that they look at in Gallatin County. So like an example in Gallatin County, so I'm just assuming that these are legal, Gallatin County's been using them. They might all be illegal. But if they are legal, maybe it's something that we might be able to glean a little bit of information off of a county that's been through this. But Gallatin County says quite a few different things. But let me just get to it here really quick. And this all goes back to what the definition of intent of invasion is. whether or not you can even look at these things, but the commission shall determine whether the applicant's claim for exemption has the purpose of evading the MSPA based on evidence presented by the applicant and any other person. In order to do so, the commission shall evaluate all relevant circumstances included but not limited to the below considerations, which if answered in the affirmative, provide a rebuttable presumption And I think she was just talking about a rebuttable presumption being shifting the definition of that is to shift the responsibility or the burden to the applicant instead of the neighbors, like what we've been doing in previous time, if there's any question. So that the exemption is being used for the... answered in the affirmative provide a rebuttable presumption that the exemption is being used for the purpose of evading subdivision review. And then they have, um, a through K a couple of them is the division would create more than one additional parcel of less than 160 acres. Um, One of them is the division creates a pattern of development consistent with an overall plan with characteristics such as common roads utility easements restrictive covenants open space or common marketing aka it looks like a subdivision. One is the existing track of record has been transferred to the claimant within the past two years. Another one is the application materials lack of compelling documentation of the recipient's intent to build on or otherwise occupy the transferred parcel within the next two years. Missoula County also had something very similar to that where they asked the applicants in the form, what is your plans for the parcel, what are you planning on, et cetera, et cetera. Another one is the recipient's own property own other property in Gallatin County. So in Gallatin County, they have a red flag that is a rebuttable presumption for evasion if you own other property. If you already have a house and now you're inheriting something that you're going to build your house on, that's going to shift the burden with the rebuttable presumption to the person bringing forward the the family transfer. And it doesn't say that that denies it. It only says that we're shifting the rebuttable presumption. And the rebuttable presumption and shifting and looking all circumstances has been in this from the 80s when this was in there. That's the one consistent thing that's been in this exemption policy from the state all the way through that has never left that that has been in there, is still in there today. And then the last one was the remaining tract is intended to be sold to finance construction on a tract gifted and transferred to the recipient. Just yesterday we witnessed that. And then, so finally, the commission will evaluate all relevant circumstances such as the nature of the claimant's business and the use of the parcel, the prior history of the particular tract in question, the proposed configuration of the tracts, if proposed exempt tracts transactions are completed, and any pattern of exempt transactions that will result in the equivalent of a subdivision without local government review. So all I'm asking is, in that long-winded way, is there other communities in Montana that have used the same umbrella that we need to be under and have figured out a way to actually close the loophole a little bit instead of open it.

What were you reading on?

This is Gallatin County's subdivision review.

I wonder where they got that link, because while you were reading that, I was looking through Missoula's exemption criteria as well, and a lot of those things are almost verbatim, so I wonder who developed or where those came from.

Those come out of a 1980 attorney general's opinion, and Alan's provided it to me and provided it to you guys. when they start wrestling with this concept of evasion, I believe they brought up the legal, and I'm not an attorney, but like doctrine of rebuttable presumption. Maybe Carmela knows more about than I do.

So have attorney generals weighed in on what the review criteria for...

They talked about kind of like what, and Alan could probably bring it up, but they kind of talked about what the relative... role of the county is for reviewing for evasion. And this is where this stuff comes up. It's all kind of generally the same.

It goes back to a Supreme Court case.

Yeah. Put in from a lot of like the state model regulations. But I'll tell you what, I mean, I talked to Planner and Delaware State. It's a challenge for every county and cities. I mean, this is administering this because you can, you can still run through a lot of these criteria. We talked about configuration of tracks and, and I mean, I think it really comes down to just defining what your or the community or the County wants to define as intent. I mean, is it okay to do a family transfer for financial gain? Is it okay to do it for family planning? Um,

what is it okay for a developer who has five kids to put a cul-de-sac down the middle and give his kids five lots that they all live in that they all want to live well but that's the interesting thing here that's what i think is so um i mean that's what i've been saying all along and that's exactly what gallatin county says gallatin county doesn't say that if you're a developer it's illegal to do one of these it just it just said it just said it just says that This looks like it could be evasion. We're going to say that it might be evasion. Can you please bring us the information to show that it's not?

So let's just keep going down this logic so we can play it out. Worst case scenario that everybody's going to buy. A developer, five kids, five lots. He breaks it in. There's six lots now on there. The remainder, five gifted pieces, road right down the center, cul-de-sac at the end. All the kids are, let's just say they're adult age, where they could have their own house, 18 plus. So... each kid builds a house on there, or we start asking those questions. It looks like a subdivision. Explain to us it's not. Well, I'm going to build all five of my kids' houses on here. Then what? We're satisfied with that? Because we can't condition the approval. We can't say, well, each kid has to build a house and each kid has to live here for five years, on and on and on. So, I mean, I guess I just don't think...

I mean, like a starting point, like a starting point is... do the kids have professional jobs in other states? Are they a resident of the ? Do they work here for their family business? Or do they work here? Or do they have professional careers in other places? I mean, that's a question that could come up if you actually asked. And so if they said, well, I actually have a professional career here in San Francisco. And I've lived here the last 20 years. And I'm not planning on retiring to Montana because I like California. then you would probably say, well, yeah, that doesn't seem legit. Whereas if the kid says, well, I work here with the family business and we whatever, then you're probably going to have to say yes to that one. But it weeds out. It probably would weed out 80% of them, which is a lot better than the track record that we have now.

TODD BANDUCCI- So one of the other thing that we've wrestled with, and I've talked to Commissioner Chilcott about this a little bit, is what? Is it wrong to utilize a family transfer to fund a college fund, say, to create a lot, sell that lot, put it into a college fund, and use it for your kids at some point down the future? Maybe not what we all think the intent of what a family transfer was for, because I tend to agree that family transfer, to me, seems to create a lot that mom or dad or son or daughter could live on. But nowhere can I find that intent where somebody said, I'm going to pass this law because I think that an adult age child should be able to move on that one acre lot you created. It doesn't say that.

TODD BANDUCCI- Nor did, but let me interrupt that for just a sec. So that's a pretty solid position until you read the law. And the law says you can give it to your spouse. Why are you giving it to your spouse? Unless it's for a financial benefit Somewhat.

You never have to sleep in the garage?

My wife doesn't let me sleep. But I would also make the argument. Yeah, go ahead. But, yeah. Pardon me?

Or else they're getting divorced. Or they're...

I don't think that was what they contemplated in the legislature. I'll be honest with you. But that could be. I mean, you make a point that that could be. You can give it to your spouse so that you can go through a divorce, right?