City Council - Regular Meeting

One, two, three. Everyone's so quiet. It must be that we're running late. Um, I'll go ahead and call this Whitefish City Council regular meeting to order uh for Tuesday, February 17th. Hopefully everyone had a great President's Day holiday and thank you for joining us this evening. We also have some folks uh joining us uh via uh Zoom remotely. So, thanks again for coming. We're going to start with our pledge of allegiance and I'll go ahead and ask Rachel Schmidt to please lead us. indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Our next item on the agenda is a mayoral proclamation that is supported by five of six uh city council members supporting solidarity with the city and citizens of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and reaffirming our support of a just, equal, and welcoming community. I think this has been somewhat overdue. Our town's been through a lot over the years. I don't mean to remind you of those events, but this is more importantly to reaffirm our values as a council with our community because we care deeply about you. So, if you'll bear with me, I will read this proclamation on behalf of the city council. Whereas the city of Whitefish as a self-governing municipal operation pursuant to the charter and laws of Montana recognizes and embraces the responsibility to promote equality for all citizens and visitors and to foster a community in which all people are afforded the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. And whereas the city of Whitefish has been and continues to be and always will be strongly committed to the ideals of civil rights, equality, and inclusion as evidenced by numerous proclamations, resolutions, and ordinances adopted by the city council over the years since I've been here at least. Whereas the city of Whitefish expects and requires that all within this community, visitors or residents, be treated with respect, dignity, and honor their natural rights and civil rights as human beings under the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, and the Montana Constitution. And whereas recent immigration enforcement actions undertaken by federal authorities in Minneapolis, including actions that have resulted in serious injury of life, have generated widespread public concern regarding civil rights, transparency, and

accountability. And whereas such actions, regardless of the ultimate outcome of any investigation, can profoundly affect public trust, community unity, and the willingness of residents to engage with local government in our awesome public safety services department. And whereas the city recognizes that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility over which the city has no legal authority or control. And whereas the city acknowledges nevertheless retains the ability and responsibility to speak on matters that affect the safety, rights, and trust of our community and to advocate for continued constitutional protections and human treatment for all. Therefore, I, John Moldeld, as the mayor of the city of Whitefish, Montana, on behalf of five of six members of the city council, do proclaim number one, the city of Whitefish does mourn the loss of life that occurred in Minneapolis and stands in solidarity with its citizens and government. The city affirms its strong commitment to equal treatment under the law and the humane respect treatment of all of individuals within the community. And finally, the city reaffirms the peaceful pro that peaceful protest is an American right. The city encourages all residents to engage in respective dialogue with one another to seek mutual understanding and promote community unity. Thank you very much for listening this evening and I'll turn it over to the council. Any comments this evening on the proclamation? Frank.

Mr. Mayor, I um I am so pleased that we have come to this place and you've been able to do this. The only way we make these sentiments known um as to who we are is is in standing in solidarity with Minnesota and what happened there and understanding that that cannot be tolerated any place. It's only when local communities, I think, like us stand up and say, "No, not in our town. it should not be in our country. We're not putting up with it. That I think it just I think it's just really important that we do that on the behalf of this community. So, thank you. Thank you, Councelor Sweeney. Councelor Cornell.

Yeah, thanks, John. Um I I do want to just thank you for the time to reaffirm my oath that I took when I was um last elect last reelected to this position. Uh my oath to the Constitution. As somebody who teaches government in high school, I'm pretty familiar with the Constitution. Um and and my oath to uphold the Constitution means upholding all of it, including the first, second, fourth, and 14th amendments, which seem to have been kind of um they've been trampled over, it seems, by this administration. And I think that it's important that we that we understand that. I also want to say that it's not just Minnesota where this is happening. It's happening all over the country. I mean, it started in um Seattle or Portland uh and it has kind of moved from place to place. uh the the worst of it has been in Minnesota. Um and and it's uh and as somebody who takes government seriously, it is quite frustrating to watch an administration of people who have also taken an oath to the same constitution repeatedly ignore that oath um that they take. So, um, thanks for offering this opportunity to reaffirm that that we up here support those ideas and that our community supports, um, the people and their rights in this community.

Thank you, Councelor Cornell. Other comments from the council? Rebecca?

Yeah, I talked about this with the mayor about sending a copy of the proclamation to the mayor of Minneapolis and um, just We've been through a lot as our I mean we have a really small town but we have been targeted before too for with hate crimes and I just think it would be a nice gesture to send them this resolution and let them know we're thinking about them. Yep. And I agree with Steve. It was about a year ago I took a break and it was because I wasn't sure if I could I wasn't sure if I could continue to serve if we were not going to be upholding the Constitution. Um and I think we're in a pivotal moment in our history right now. So everybody needs to take it seriously what we're seeing and um act accordingly. But thank you John.

Thank you councelor Norton. Further comments from the council. Jeppe.

Yes Mr. Mr. Mayor, uh you noted that the proclamation uh was not supported by one of the members of council. That's me. And I'd like uh number one to appreciate your acknowledgement. And number two, I'd like to quickly explain my reasoning. First of all, let me say that any loss of light life is tragic. Nothing in my position reflects indifference to that nor a lack of concern for civil rights or human dignity. My concern is about scope and responsibility. As members of the Wish City Council, we're entrusted with governing this municipality, adopting budgets, passing ordinances, overseeing infrastructure, and ensuring public safety here at home. A mayoral proclamation is an executive expression. That authority probably rests on the mayor. The council, however, is a legislative body. When we act as a council, we're speaking in a governing capacity, and we must be mindful that legislative actions imply policy direction and public commitments. In matters outside our jurisdiction, we do not have the authority to implement, oversee, or carry out the promises implied by such statements. The events referenced in the proclamation occurred outside our jurisdiction and fall under federal authority. We have no legal oversight in those matters. When we take formal council positions beyond our municipality municipal responsibilities, we risk expanding the role of this body beyond what the citizens elected us to do and creating expectations we cannot fulfill. I respect the mayor's authority to issue proclamations. My position simply reflects my belief that the council's

legislative role is different. We can still stand united in treating every person in lifeish with dignity and respect. And we serve our community best by focusing our collective energy on the responsibilities entrusted specifically to us governing locally fairly and transparently. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council. Thank you, Councelor Kalabiano. Further comments from the council. Just a point of clarification

quickly, please. In our charter, we do have the right to um uh act in ways if we have a consensus. Um we did bring this up with Dana last year about whether or not we should be reaching out to our federal um counterparts, but she didn't believe that we had the right to do that because we were not singled out. So there are mechanisms in place for us to do outreach beyond our traditional scope. It's just we haven't done that yet. Thank you.

Thank you, Rebecca. Not seeing any additional comments. Thank you very much for your attention this evening. We'll move on to communications from the public. We do have two public hearings advertised tonight. So if you're here to speak on those individual hearings, please wait until item seven of the agenda. Otherwise, anything you'd like to bring to the attention of the council name and address for the record, please. Keegan.

Hello. Uh, Keegan Sevenaller, 306 Love Avenue. Um, as a citizen, I did want to thank the council um, for its proclamation. Um, but speaking tonight as the executive director of Shelter WF, um, I'm just giving public comment on the work session. I wanted to give you the break you uh, you deserve. Um, I think we feel that this land use plan is conceptually off the mark in a few areas and we do hope that over the next few weeks the planning commission and city council can really take some substantive changes to this document. Um, shelter WF can work on a report identifying the areas that Ben mentioned that um saw like differences from prior zoning. The overall upshot is that we're not changing the land use designation in the vast majority of the city. Um, and other than those three areas where we do change it, it is in effect a down zone. Um, so a few examples right now, north of Park of Riverlakes Parkway, it's WR4 and it's now proposed a suburban neighborhood. Um, south of 7th Street, Asher Avenue zone is similarly WR4 now proposed suburban neighborhood. Um, also Mountain Park Drive west of town currently WR3 proposed suburban neighborhood. Um, there's more examples that are like that, little spots around town that are in effect down zones. And then um that Lur Avenue uh that got a lot of public comment went from you know 18 units designated in current zoning now proposed just quadplexes. Um so that's downzoning. This is a growth policy and so we're theoretically making that up with those three lots. Um lot A is already approved. That's Whitetail Ridge around 73 units. Lot B is by Park Null Lane. There's been a lot of public comment around that and a decent amount of the property is a wetland which will have to be protected and then lot C is the old hospital site. Um so in reality we have about one and a half lots that we expect to absorb around 1500 units over the next 20 years. I think that is startlingly unlikely to take place. Um

and when that doesn't happen, the very next choice is annexations and sprawl. Um, to put it as plain as I can, I think that's phenomenally risky strategy. Um, I don't think it's a very realistic way to meet our housing needs and we're disappointed that the land use plan thinks so narrow narrowly around where housing units can come from in the future. We think that every property owner in Whitefish should have an opportunity to help create workforce housing. So, the sprawl that will take place is also at odds with a lot of other parts of the growth policy. Um, a growth policy talks about being multimodal. when we're growing on the edge of the city, that's not going to happen. Um, it talks about protecting open space against sprawl. Um, and then it talks about supporting a vibrant downtown and then directs growth away from those areas. Um, it also talks about infill and that's been mentioned in a lot of public comment. Infill is not just the state requirements of duplexes and it's not just those few lots. Um, it's trying to utilize all the underdeveloped and undeveloped areas close to downtown Whitefish. So Crandle Aramula on behalf of Heart of Whitefish gave a presentation saying that around 75% of housing units should be created within a mile of downtown Whitefish and we completely agree with that. Um they've suggested that around 1,600 units should be developed within that radius. Uh you talked you heard Dave talk about how it makes good planning sense for that to happen as well. Um, and I wanted to mention a phrase that Heart of Whitefish or sorry, Housing Whitefish brought brought into this discussion a few months ago, and it's been repeated by a lot of people, which is that um, no neighborhood should experience rapid change, but no neighborhood should experience no change. The land use plan we have right now is basically the opposite of that. One or two areas have dramatic change, um, but not enough to make up for the many areas of the city that are slated for no change at all. ShelterWF thinks that the land use plan needs significant work. We are writing a growth policy that will result in down zones or no change to most residential areas. I don't think that's planning for growth and I don't know how we plan on justifying that. Thank you for your

time. Thanks, Keegan. Rachel,

happy snow day, mayor and city councilman. Um Rachel Schmidt, 675 Woodside Lane. Um, before I start into what I was going to say, I just wanted to say thank you for your proclamation regarding Minnesota. Um, it's actions like that that makes me proud that this is my hometown. So, thank you very much. Um, I'm here as part of the crew. What was that? Um, I'm here as part of the crew um for Safe Trails Whitefish and I'm giving you guys a quick update on um the River Lake City Park work that we're doing um and trail system. So, I've kind of talked to you guys a couple times about that. Um, we had a great stakeholder uh meeting where we brainstormed and talked about ideas with different stakeholders in the area about what everyone would like to see in that city park. Um, we got some great ideas. We got some maps put together. And so, we're actually holding an open house on March 3rd and 4th. That's Tuesday and a Wednesday, 3rd and 4th at North Valley Music School from 7 to 8:00 p.m. We're going to have some big drawings and worksheets. Um, it's an open invitation to anybody who would like to come and think about what the future of that city park might look like for residents. And, um, just wanted to let everybody know that you're all welcome to join us. Um, and if you have any questions, you can reach out to Safe Trails Whitefish.

And that was 7 to 8:00 p.m. March 7 to 8:00 p.m. Yep. March 3rd and 4th. It's a Tuesday and a Wednesday at um, North Valley Music School in the recital hall looking right out at the city park. Awesome. So, I have issued u proactive invitations to all the HOAs, all of the businesses, the church, the hospital, the springs. Um, and I'm actively working with the springs right now. So, they're all very aware well well aware of it. So, thanks so much. Thanks, Rachel.

Richard, honorable Mayor Mel I want to take a moment to thank you for your proclamation in support of the citizen and citizens of Minneapolis, Minnesota. And thank you for restating the basic right of every citizen to peacefully assemble and speak their truth to power. Silence is not an option when our basic human and civil rights are being threatened by the very institutions that were created for our mutual protection. There are some in this chamber who may well remember Mayor Fury's 2002 not in our town proclamation. Mayor Mofeld's 2016 proclamation with a unanimous concurrence of council repudiating vi the vitriol of hate when Richard Spencer and his neo-Nazis came to town. And the mayor and council stood up and spoke out in solidarity with the city and people of Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. Honorable mayor, thanks for your lead leadership, your integrity, your compassion and courage to stand up and speak up. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard Rhonda. Rhonda Fitzgerald. Well, Richard is much more eloquent than I, but I want to really sincerely thank you for the resolution, the proclamation in solidarity of the people of Minneapolis and Minnesota. Um, I think not in our town is kind of the the mantra that has to continue for us. And I'm so proud that I'm a citizen of a community where the council will take that kind of action and I just want to thank each of you for that and tell you just how much it's appreciated. Thank you. Thanks Rhonda. Scott

Scott Worester 222 Montana Avenue. Um I would also like to join everybody's thanking you for the proclamation. My sister-in-law lives uh in Minneapolis and she has been sending me daily pictures and stories about what's going on on the ground out there and I'm going to be proud to send her that proclamation back. Um, and so thank you. Um, uh, uh, the reason I wanted to come up here was, uh, as we approach inexurably the one-year anniversary of the fire that took the old Piccolo's um, on the corner of Wisconsin and Edgewood. Um, uh, I have still not seen any real progress. I don't know if there's anything going on um on the consent agenda or here, but I would again appreciate hearing at some appropriate point where we are with that. Thank you.

Thanks, Scott. Sir, good evening. Thanks for having me. Um I want to switch gears here real quick regarding just name and address for the record, please. Yeah, thanks. Skyler Johnston, 174 Armory Road. Was it Aaron? Skyler Johnson. Skyler, I'm sorry. Y

uh regarding agenda number nine, uh for the consideration to approve conceptual design for Armory Road, um I just want to speak on behalf of a number of the community members that live there. Um we're we've worked a lot with Craig. We've worked a lot with Morrison, the the uh you the project manager, and I I feel like they've done a good job listening to our concerns and taking into account what we're looking for in an upgraded road through there. And there's I just want to speak to the fact that uh most of the community around there is on board with the plan that has been devised so far. And so we'd like to see this get pushed over to the finish line so we can start working on it this spring. Thanks.

Thanks, Skyler. Thanks for coming out.

I'm on that same boat. I'm Carla Steel at 168 Armory Road. And um I wanted to also say that um for the agenda item number nine um agreed that Morrison has done a solid job in coming out and addressing our concerns. Um when we email them, they're responsive. um they will come out and explain, you know, what land is going to get used, how it's going to get used, and they've just demonstrated all the proposed items. So, I ask on behalf of myself and um an additional neighbor, Karen Kurin, uh Hilding, to please approve the um construction for Army Road. Thank you.

Thanks so much. Who's next? For the record, for the safety of myself and my family, my name is Z and my address is 418 East 2nd Street. That is Z spelled Z E. So, Jeppe, when you address my behavior, I expect you to refer to me accordingly. First of all, I feel as if I'm in a Twilight Zone of sorts. I had my remarks all prepared and then your lovely proclamation threw me. I do need to say just based on what you said, Steve, I'll remind you that as a city you are being sued for violating Beckair's fourth and 14th amendment rights. So any reference to the Constitution, it's just

disingenuous at best. It's ridiculous. Back to my prepared remarks. I'm dedicating my comments tonight to the memory of Alex Prey. in what I intend to be my final public comment displaying this sign. I am compelled to respond to the false and damaging accusations that Steve Jeppy and Ben to a lesser extent have publicly leveled against me. See, I I would just ask that you please follow our principles of civil dialogue. We follow them and we expect the public to follow them and I won't accept or tolerate accusations or criticisms that are out of line to sitting council members, please.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's a request and Yes. Okay. That's a request. It's not a law, but it's a request.

Yes. I'll continue with my comment now. Restore whatever time I have. Thank you. This is Officer Michael Hingis who is clearly identified as an individual officer. Officer Hingis is a defendant in a lawsuit that alleges he engaged in racial profiling. The Ku Klux Clan has racist ideologies that are the foundation of their actions. ICE is targeting people based on race. The nexus between the three images depicted is clear and obvious. Now, louder for those in the back. This sign does not portray the Whitefish Police Department as a racist organization. I have never accused the Whitefish Police Department of being a racist organization. Are there Trumploving Fox News obsessed officers? Of course there are. But if they do not engage in racebased policing, their likeness will never appear on one of my signs. council,

it would behoove you moving forward to remember that however distasteful, offensive, or inappropriate you find my signs or more precisely me to be. It is my first amendment right to petition you for a redress of grievances without fear of punishment, including defamation. Rules of civil discourse are not laws. Tread lightly. You're on notice. Further public comment this evening. Michelle, anyone online wishing to provide comments? Toby, apologies.

I'd hope to get up here for too many minutes. Toby Scott, Barkley Lane, Whitefish. Um, mayor and counselors, I'm just up here with my usual list of the things that I would like the city to undertake or address. I think I had a copy sent to you, but I'll go through it. A stoplight at 13th and Baker. No roundabout, just a stoplight so that we can move through there a little bit easier. Painting the signal boxes at the stoplighted intersections. The silver is to me not aesthetically pleasing and both Callispel and both Boseman have both painted theirs and I think that they look very nice. I also found out that in Bosezeman the boxes are actually wrapped with vinyl so that they can take it off or change it, move it. And then um as I've suggested in the past, street side EV charging stations. Uh, and I did find out that I think that there's an amount for this in the budget. And just as I'm going through that, uh, Rebecca, thank you for mentioning these things after I depart here. Um, and then to remove the least space requirement for the four EV charging stations in the parking garage on the least level. Uh I was cited one time for parking there prior to a planning meeting. And anyway, uh but I would say that uh if it's open to public use, you can plug your car in, but you can only leave it there for three hours. So, and then the last one is a request for a revision of the building requirements for multi-unit apartment buildings to include EV chargers for all

new buildings of I put in my original note to you eight units, but it might be 10, 12, something like that. Find an appropriate number. And then the more units, the more charge stations or at least require that they wire up for charge stations to be there. Uh, we require bicycle racks and with the growing number of EVs, if you don't notice them, just look around. They're all over town. Teslas are the easiest to find, but there are plenty of others. And I think that uh in the course of the uh planning for 2045, we're just going to get more EVs. And so, it would be handy if we accept the fact and make provision for them. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Toby. Michelle, once again, anyone online wishing to provide comment?

I did put a comment in the chat and I haven't received anything, but um anybody who is online who does not want to address the council or would like to address the council regarding anything that is not advertised as a public hearing, please raise your hand.

I think we're good. Thank you, Michelle. I'll stay with the audience. Any volunteer board reports this evening. Toby, you're back up.

Just stand up here and continue. Uh, okay. Uh, mayor, city councilors, I am the chairman of the Lakeshore Protection Committee. Uh, not far from the public view at all times. Um, I just want to recap what's going on with the the committee. Uh, in December of 2025, the city sent a letter summarizing two violations of our lake fork protection regulations on the county property on the lake to the county commissioners. And these pro two properties specifically were the what we refer to as the concrete house and a property on West Haven with a retaining wall approximately 3 feet high below the water line. not just the high water line, but the water line. On January 14th, the county planning board held a meeting to revise and perhaps reduce the regulations for all county lakes lake shores. I attended the meeting to represent Whitefish Lake and in attendance with me was Mike Copel from the Whitefish Lake Institute, Dave Fern, our Whitefish State Senator, Jamie Goen, a resident of Whitefish, Mayor Flowers from Citizens for a Better Flathead, and she presented Jim Stack, former chairman of the Whitefish Protection Committee, uh, letter to the board, and also Dr. Mark Lorraine, the director of the Flat Hood Bio Station and also a reporter from NBC Montana Missoula. When the issue of Whitefish Lake violations was reviewed, the board was unaware of the letter, having only received it prior to the meeting. I, among others from Whitefish, spoke explaining the violations and the lack of apparent interest by the county officials and enforcement of regulations. I ended by stating that Whitefish would like to administer the entire lake shore. At which point the county

planning director spoke out spoke out and I paraphrase you can have it. He seemed quite enthused about the fact of not having the responsibility of dealing with the lakeshore reserv regulations. Um just a second. Um and most of those that from Whitefish left felt that it was a productive and informative meeting for the county board. And less than a week week later, I met with Eric Back Mack, the planning director, and I was accompanied by Scott Worester, the newly appointed uh planning board representative on the White Fish Lakes Shore Protection Committee. And uh Scott is a aside from my comments here, Scott is a bulldog about going on stuff and he's been leading the charge. And uh and we spoke with Eric and he was receptive to working with Whitefish and the white and the Whitefish lakes shore protection committee to administer the county portion of the lake. The county is seriously understaffed and does not have the time or manpower to check on any permitted construction or work on White Fish Lake. They only check if there is a complaint for a specific project. I'm hoping to get an article in both the inner lake and the pilot noting that fact so that if anyone's on the lake sees a violation, don't just do nothing. Um, excuse me a second. Sorry. Um, and in any event, uh, so they only do it by, uh, complaint and I offered the assistance of the Whitefish Lakeshore Protection Committee members to follow up any inquiries. As the county lakes shore protection regulations are not as stringent as white fish lake regulations, I suggested that we members of the white fish lakeshore protection committee uh look over the difference

between the city and the county regulations and perhaps offer suggestions and help regarding the portions of the White Fish Lake in the county. Following these meetings on February 4th, the NBC News at 10 out of Missoula aired a story that they had been doing on this prior to that. Uh I was a big star in this this uh report and uh I've heard from many people that they saw me on TV. I thought it was a one-off shot, but it turned out they aired it for several days afterwards. and it report included an interview with myself and excerpts to the board meeting and overview of the city county lakeshore issue. Um since that time the white fish lake protection committee has met unfortunately with no quorum but we did meet and those that were there we talked about it and we're hoping to seek better relations with the county through dialogue volunteer help and regulation. We will approach county commissioners to open an avenue of discussion and are investigating other means for white fish to have more control over the entire lake shore. This will be an ongoing effort over the years, but hopefully it will provide a means to protect our entire lake shore and there's an assortment of means that we are pursuing and you can just be assured that uh we're going to continue because Whitefish and Whitefish Lake is where we live. Thank you. Thanks Toby and thanks for all your your efforts related any any additional volunteer board reports from the audience Michelle? Anyone online? I doubt it, but how about the council?

Rebecca?

Yeah, the climate action committee has met twice. Um we're working on EV charging stations as Toby said. So, there's some um requests from the committee for staff to identify funding. I think Karen was able to come last time and she said there was already designated funding for an EV station at um the park downtown. So, I don't know if Craig wants to address that or Dana. and and also um I guess the newer EV charging stations cost about $25,000 and um so we're just talking about where to get them around town and things like that, but there is a already a plan to put one downtown or two. And then also the one like what Toby was saying in the parking structure, they're all slow charging stations and we were wondering about um turning them into fast charging stations and not all of them in the least area as well. So I'm just telling you this is what we're talking about and then um you don't have to respond tonight unless you have an answer. And then the other thing that we're working on is the emergency services centers upgrade for um making it more efficient. Um any response?

I can. Yes. Um so what we have in the budget I believe is $6,000 which is well under the needed amount, excuse me, for um charging stations at depot park. That is something we can consider with the next fiscal year budget. um if we replace the units in the parking structure, there is a new law that we have to start collecting tax on anything utilized. Um and so they now become taxable. So I think if we make changes, even public um EV stations now have to remit a tax to the state of 3 cents uh per I'm not sure what the kilowatt is, but I'll have to pull that bill up. Um so there is new laws related to that right now. Um they're just for free use essentially. Um and so um we've considered them that there's no tax if we're not charging. Um the other portion of the request was to uh allow for usage of those within that area. I think enforcement will be the biggest challenge and I would say we we wouldn't um one of the ways we recoup the costs is just through that lease payment. So, we would probably look at doing those as charging for a fee type of um charging station. We can explore that um in further, but we will have to make sure that we're reporting um taxes and everything to the state when we do that. The other uh comment that was brought about EV charging stations is there was a bill in the 2023 state legislature, I think it's House Bill 241. Um, that bill prohibits local governments from requiring any wiring equipment to have EV charging stations with any building. So, they've limited our ability there as well.

Did you just say the legislature took away our right to do EV charging stations and parking to require them for developers? Oh, you mean in private developments? Right. We can do them for our own as public Yeah. spaces. um they they just added that tax. But yeah, if we were to try to require developments to put in EV charging stations, um that is no longer allowed by the legislature or the state. And even if it was something like the legacy program where it was an incentive, we couldn't do that then either. If it's an incentive program, that's different than a requirement, but you'd be having to give up something to require that. Wow. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. The only other thing I'd mention is that $6,000 that we have in the fiscal year 26 budget was intended to be a match for a grant that Flathead Electric had applied for U, which they did not get. So I think it was a 50 or $60,000 project that we were going to put about 10% towards.

Thanks, Craig. We do have an item advertised under volunteer boards and we will move on to that item 5A which will be ordinance 26-2 an ordinance amending Whitefish City Code title 2 chapter 12 regarding membership qualifications of the convention and visitors bureau committee and this will be on a first reading and I believe Rhonda are you here to present? Yes. Sorry about that. I know, your honor.

Uh, good evening, Zach Anderson, 122 Dakota Avenue, uh, current prime minister of the Winter Carnival, slowly recovering. Um,

yeah. So, included in your packet tonight was a letter that I'm sure you have all read. Um, so we're just essentially respectfully requesting consideration of a proposed amendment to the ordinance, which is 0605, which is related to the appointment criteria for the Whitefish Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors. Uh, the intent of the proposed change is to provide some flexibility for council when they're appointing board members um while continuing to ensure that the board reflects um the community. So in short, the two changes that are being requested include uh allowing one additional board member to be a resident of the county um up to three instead of two and that the requirement be that um they be a member of the CVB in good standing. So this would then uh ensure that our bylaws uh reflect all the changes and that we'll be in alignment with the city.

Thanks Zach. Happy to answer. Any questions for Zach on the ordinance? Jeppe. Mr. Prime Minister, uh, if you promise not to roll the other, I'll ask you a question. Uh, it says that to be a board member, you need to be also a member of the WFish Convention Visitor Bureau. Am I correct? Yes. And those members are either persons or corporations. Yes.

Okay. So my my question is the wifeish community visual bureau is a public voting that's why you're here at the same time not all the persons or all the businesses are allowed to be eligible for the board but they have to be members correct and can you very quickly can I ask one final very quickly define uh what the membership looks like because I picture it like the chamber of commerce but and it's not the chamber of commerce This is a public body.

Correct. And so whereas the chamber is open to any and all businesses, we are only uh membership. You have to be within the zip code of whitefish. So you need to be a Whitefish business. So I think it essentially makes sense that we would ask that um your business be involved with um the visitors bureau and therefore you would also be a member uh someone who is either part of the community or lives within the flathead and works for that business so they have an understanding of the business and the community. Thanks Zach. Further questions for Zach? Appreciate it.

All right. Thank you. I would entertain a motion on ordinance 26-02. Please, Mr. Mayor, I would move to approve ordinance 2602, an ordinance amending the White Fish City Code Title 2, Chapter 12, regarding the membership qualifications for the convention and visitors bureau committee. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Cornell. Further discussion. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign. And that motion does carry unanimously. Michelle, thanks again, Zach, for attending tonight. We'll move on to item six, which is our consent agenda. You have the minutes from the January 20th, 2026 meeting enclosed. Can I have a motion on the consent agenda? Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Cornell. Further discussion. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign. And that likewise carries unanimously. Michelle, which does bring us on to our first of two public hearings, which will be item 7A, resolution 26-3, establishing an increase in the public usage fee for the White Fish City Beach Boat launch. This is on page 415 of your packet.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh, my staff report and associated documents are in your packet for your reference. In 2016, city council approved a boat launch fee increase from $5 to $10 for a day pass and $40 to $50 for a season pass. And at that time, council asked staff to monitor rates to make sure that they adequately pay for the city's aquatic invasive species program. We have been monitoring the efficacy of those rates and have determined that it's now time to propose an increase to the Whitefish City beach boat launch fees. These proposed fees in fee increases would impact both privately and commercially launched watercraft. Funds would be used to support the aquatic invasive species program, including inspections at City Beach and Whitefish Lake State Park. Watercraft decontamination will continue to be free and funds will also support the boat ramp maintenance and staffing. So, I just want to give you a little bit of background on how we established those fees. Uh, by evaluating the cost of city beach boat launch personnel and supplies versus the revenues received in past years, we were able to determine the need for fee increases. We evaluated the percentage of boat launches that were single launches versus season pass launches and those that were Montana residents versus those that were non Montana residents. We also researched fees from similar uh municipalities and boat launches to come up with the proposed fee schedule. The cost to fund seasonal staff who perform inspections, decontaminations, and facility maintenance averages around $119,000 annually. Additionally, the recent boat ramp and drive lane improvements total $235,000. To offset this, Whitefish Lake Institute contributes $17,500 annually to the cost of running the decontamination station. Additionally,

we receive income from boat launch passes and commercial permits. And in 2025, that revenue totaled $32,590. What this means is that the fees generated from the boat launch are currently only covering about 27% of the cost of the AIS program. To break that down a little more, in 2025, City Beach sold 1,099 day passes at $10 per launch for a total of $10,990. Of those 1,099 day passes, 934 purchases were from residents, while 165day pass purchases were from non-residents. Additionally, commercial permit holders purchased 22 punch cards at $50 each for a total of 100 uh $1,100. Those uh there were a total of 350 season passes that were sold at $50 each for a total of $17,500. So, the total day use and season pass sales for 2025 total $29,590. And then revenue from commercial permits make up the remaining $3,000 from the 2025 season. Uh this was generated by 24 commercial permits issued at a flat rate of $125. Each comes with one season pass or one punch card. Now focusing on the commercial boat launch permit program. It was established in 2017 with nine permits issued in that year. And in 2025 there were 24 commercial permits. Commercial permit holders use the launch heavily. In the spring and fall, boat delivery and pickup dominate the launch. During the summer, motorized watercraft rentals and guided trips are the primary commercial use. Not only does this add to the busyiness of the launch during peak public use, but it also adds to the demand for parking by commercial clients.

In 2021, we established limits on commercial use permits at Whitefish City Beach. So, up to six permits for businesses providing guiding services, up to four permits for motorized rental delivery, and no limits on boat storage delivery, uh, marine services or sales, and dock service permits as well. Non-motorized rental delivery is not permitted at the beach, but it is allowed at riverfront parks with a limit of five watercraft per day. The rental permit quota has been filled every year since limits were imposed. In 2025, there were four businesses on the wait list. We have also identified other individuals renting personally owned boats on websites like boat setter and get my goat. Get my get my boat, not get my goat, as well as the rental of e-motorized hand launch watercraft, which is a relatively new form of recreation and is a potential commercial use that does need to be considered in the permitting process. The proposed fee schedule was presented to the park board on January 13th of this year at their regularly scheduled meeting. The board voted unanim unanimously to approve the fee schedule as proposed. However, there was also consensus that the board would be supportive of increases increased fees for non-residents and ask staff to bring back data to the board at the end of the season to evaluate the effectiveness of the fee changes. uh Carla um Bellski, our community services coordinator, and I then brought that fee scheduled to you folks during a work session on January 20th of this year. After receiving public comment, the council directed staff to re uh revise the fee schedule to better cover costs associated with the management of the boat ramp, AIS inspections, and decontaminations through further increases to commercial and non-resident fees. We revised the fee schedule based on that feedback by increasing the non-resident day launch fee from $30 to

$50 and the non-resident season pass fee from $200 to $250. Additionally, we remove the inclusion of the punch card with the commercial base fee. Instead, commercial users will be required to pay the resident day launch fee for each launch. This method will naturally require commercial users to pay for the level of impact their business has at the boat launch instead of staff trying to estimate tiered levels of use. This method will also allow staff to gather better data on the number of commercial launches at City Beach each year. So to review the proposed fee schedule, um the proposed city beach boat launch fees are resident day launch fees. They were $10 going up to $15. Uh, in the past we didn't have a non-resident day launch fee, so that would be established at $50. Resident season pass fees were $50 going up to $100 and non-resident season pass fees did not exist. Uh, and those are proposed at $250. Um, just to uh clarify, resident does mean a watercraft that is registered in Montana. The proposed commercial boat launch fee um permit fees are for watercraft delivery, dock services, sales, and marina launching. They were $125 and that included one season pass or a punch card. Uh they are proposed now to be $500 plus $15 per launch. There is no um permit quota on those. motorized rentals, including e- motors, were 125 with that season pass and punch card. Uh, now proposed at $500 plus $15 per motorized launch or $5 per e- motor hand launch. Uh, six permits would be issued for those.

for guiding. Uh they were $125 with the season pass and punch card and now proposed at that 500 plus $15 per launch. Three permits in that quota. The river non-motorized fee was $125 is going up to $250 and we do not have quota limits on that. the e- motor launching. Um because they are using the motorized mooring area at the beach, they didn't have a rate in the past, but they would now be required to do $5 per watercraft. And then the commercial motorized punch card was $50 for five launches is now $75 for five launches. Uh, it's also important to note that the businesses that were provided a season pass or a punch card for one boat in the past, they also had to pay for additional boats to be launched at the rate of $10 for a single launch or they had to get another season pass at $50 uh for each additional boat that they were launching for their business. These prop proposed increases will bring revenues closer in line with associated expenditures by increasing non-resident boater fees, commercial permit fees, and by adding a per launch fee structure instead of a flat fee um for annual commercial rentals, boat ramp revenues are projected to increase by 60%. This means that the associated boat launch fees would cover 80% of the cost to perform aquatic invasive species inspections and decontaminations by city staff. Cost analysis sheets are provided in your packet for your reference. These fees would take effects effect uh March 1st, which is when the commercial registration will open for the summer season. Um, and staff does respectfully recommend that the council adopt the resolution approving the 2026 city beach boat launch fee schedule. And Carla and I are both here to answer any questions

you might have. Thank you, Director Buts. Any questions for Maria or Carla for that matter? Steve, just a couple quick questions. How And so, we're determining that resident means state resident. That's correct. So, how are we determining that? Do they have to show a driver's license or is it just their license plate? where the boat is registered. Where the boat is registered. Okay. Thank you. Um and then if I understand this correctly, the fees are the the ride the the hike in fees is to pay for the decontamination and the administration of our AIS program. Is that that's correct? Mostly it. So it's nothing about like impact to the lake or anything like that.

Uh well, I would I would say that the aquatic invasive species program is about the impact to the lake. Okay. All right. Uh but not based on the use or the boat is my That's correct. Right. We're not doing it based on the type of boat um or the length of boat or um Right. It's basically motorized or non-motorized or I'm sorry, resident or non-resident.

Okay. Uh I would like to see maybe in the future that since we're I mean I fully support what we're doing now. I just want to put plug for the future. Let's see how this goes for a couple years. And maybe we need to look at by boat type. The the the cost is by boat type, not um necessarily the same thing for everybody because a bass boat has a vastly different impact than a wakeboat does. Um and also has is much more likely to have a aquatic invasive species contamination than something that doesn't have a whatever you call it, a ballast tank or whatever those things are. Yeah, we have we did discuss that. Um, and you were correct that like wakeboard boats impact the um the lake um because just because of the wake that they're producing. Um, but also uh a lot of the fishing boats are um going around Montana and are actually transporting more plantlike

um aquatic invasive species. So, it's not just the quaga and the zebra muscles, but it's also the plant. And so we are having to inspect both. Um the those wakeboard boats do have to go through the hotwash decontamination. So there's more time that they're um that they are requiring. So we could look at it in that respect that it's requiring more time to inspect them and decontaminate them, but we can't charge for the decontamination either. So we have to be careful in that respect. Okay. Uh thank you. I just wanted to put that in the hopper. Thanks.

Thanks, Steve. Any additional questions for Maria? Not seeing any. We did advertise for a public hearing on what will be resolution 26-3. Any public comment tonight on this item?

Good evening. Uh Andre Gchoff, 120 Riverb Drive. Uh, I am a commercial boat permit holder. I also have recreated on this lake my entire life. Um, per the state of Montana, staying in the Flathead River Basin, which is um, the reservoir, Flathead Lake, Whitefish Lake, any rivers in that area, any other lakes, they're not concerned about AIS. They only operate inspection stations at the Flathead Lake uh sites on the weekends. Now, the only time they do get concerned is when the boat travels outside of the Flathead River Basin. The Columbia River Basin is stuff downstream. That's when they start getting concerned. I feel that going after the commercial boat operators is justified. We do use the the ramp often. However, it it sounded like there may have been a tiered system that was worked out and that seemed more justified for the people that were not using the boat on a daily basis. Um I would like to have maybe some consideration brought into that for the tiered system. Um that being said, it's a great lake. I'm glad we're being proactive at protecting it. Also, um, for the non-residents, I don't think that's fair to be able to register your vote in Montana if you live in Utah or Arizona. They should be getting charged an out ofstate fee on that as well. So, thank you for your time.

Appreciate your comments. Additional public comment this evening, Michelle. Anyone online? Uh for those of you who are online, please raise your hand if you'd like to address the council regarding the increase of public usage fees at the vote launch.

We're good. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing on resolution 26-3. And I would entertain a motion just to start discussion, please. Mr. Mayor, I would move to approve resolution uh 2603, a resolution to establish an increase in the public usage fees at the White Fish City boat launch. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Cornell. Further discussion, Rebecca, I think it's a miracle that this has worked so well for so long and I really appreciate the staff doing this.

Mr. Mayor, I one other thing. Uh, I think this is a is a great idea and I again one once again I have to say Maria you've done yman's job on trying to figure out how to make um this available and yet itself and pay for itself so that we all benefit from it. So I want to thank you for that. Um I I would echo our uh commenters uh Andre's uh comment that at some point in the future I think we ought to consider um residents being Montana residents. Um, and that we'd have to be both a Montana resident and a Montana vote to get the break be my view. Uh, but that's something I think we ought to consider and it's it may be something we missed in this time. I just want to get this in place. So, thank you.

Thanks, Frank. Jeppi.

Yes, I had the honor of feeling Frank Sween's big shoes at that park board meeting and it was pretty enjoyable to see how things are done there. So great job park and other board members. At that point I was one of the proponent I'm sometimes I'm extreme zero zero fees to the locals 10 times the fees to the non-locals and and and that was just not in times the fees actually they had zeros to begin with. You're right 10 times there were proposed fees. And the reason is the usual reason. We are here all year round. We pay resort tax all year round. We pay Montana tax all year round. Someone coming from Florida, Texas, Washington, Oregon, they don't pay state income tax. And uh and we also discussed the challenge of identify locals versus non-locals. And the first step was the boat registration. But I agree that that's a challenge. The boat registration forces the boat owner to pay at least the MTD whatever is the department of transportation tax for the year for that boat but that doesn't come to us as residents of Whitefish. So the recommendation of doing this first stage as we're doing it and review it in one or two years uh was discussed at the park board. Uh I think I missed the work session when you directed the staff for these fees. So I apologize for that. Uh, but I'm in favor again for the record to reduce the locals fees and increase the non-residents fees.

Thank you, Jeppe. Further comments on this item. Not seeing any. Maria, thanks very much. And I know it's not a particularly easy job operating the boat launch station. So to your employees and Carla in particular, thanks for for all your efforts and for bringing this forward for us and for our community. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like on and the motion does carry unanimously. We'll move on to our second public hearing of the evening, which will be item 7B, resolution 26-4, approving an amendment to the lease agreement and a Glacier Twins long-term lease of stadium land located at Memorial Park. City Attorney Jacobs.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My staff report begins on 429 of the packet. By way of background, since 1936, the community baseball stadium has existed on the northeast corner of the city-owned Memorial Park. Um, over the past 60 years, the Glacier Twins have completed several capital improvement projects on the property for the purpose of holding American Legion baseball practices, games, and programming. Though the twins had leased the land from the city um in October of uh 2002, way before my time, let's note the city and the glacier twins entered into a long-term lease agreement. An agreement permitting the construction of a new stadium grandstand. The base term for the lease was 25 years, giving the twins the option to automatically renew it for two consecutive terms of 15 years each. In other words, it was a 55year lease. It provided that the twins would have exclusive use of memorial fields, but it did require them to subleasase only to um the Whitefish School District for football and to Babe Ruth. In uh 2014, again before my time, to address the construction of a Verizon cell phone tower within the leased area and the distribution of funds received by Verizon, the twins entered into uhou with the board of park board of commissioners. Um it was my understanding that the twins were instrumental in I want to say courting Verizon um for the construction of this tower um as a way to pay for their operations. Um theou was last amended in 2022 and the twins now receive 78% of the Verizon funds received by the city and that equates to roughly $20,000 a year. Those are the only funds that the twins receive from the city. To clarify,

there is no tax dollars being given to the Glacier Twins. Over the past year, members of the public have raised concerns regarding the long-term lease in the use of Memorial Field. At the time of authoring of this um staff report, concerns included allegations that the Twins were misappropriating the Verizon funds, that the school district was not being allowed to utilize Memorial Field for its high school baseball and football teams, the length of the long-term lease, characterization of Memorial Field as a private playground for the Glacier Twins, and the possibility that the Twins would continue to hold the property even if they didn't have enough players to field the team. So in December of 2025, the city in Verizon entered into a second amendment to a license agreement. It extended the license granted to Verizon um for 5 years beginning on February 1st, 2025. So it was almost backdated it the the license agreement kind of expired and we didn't realize it. So, we backdated it and it set a new annual rent of $26,664 and change. Um, as a result of the new Verizon agreement, staff saw an opportunity to approach the twins about amending theou to make sure that its term aligned with the new license agreement and to discuss um some of the community's concerns with respect to the long-term lease agreement. We were met with um you know a willingness by the twins which frankly we were very grateful for for um to be frank I don't think we unless the twins were in breach of the agreement they really didn't have to sit down with us and they were willing to do that and I'd really like to acknowledge that. So staff met several times with the Glacier twins um to discuss the

amendments to theou and the long-term lease agreement. Councelor Ferry and Councelor Sweeney were involved in one of those meetings. Um, in one meeting staff being myself, Maria and Dana and I met with them and went through the last two years of their books or their financials. That meeting was attended by the president of JCCS as well as by city manager Miker who as you guys all know is a rockstar and holds a CPA license. No evidence of misappropriation was found. We also met with representatives of the school district who informed us that the school district does not desire to use Memorial Field at this time because they're you utilizing Smith Fields. We also asked them about the amount that the twins was charging them for a sub lease and that really wasn't their reason for not wishing to utilize the fields. So the amendment to theou which was approved by the park board at its meeting on February 10th aligns the term of theou with the second amendment to the license agreement. It's also going to create some transparency how we've dealt with the payment of Verizon funds as just one lump sum sum to the twins every year. So now we're going to the state's going to hold the Verizon funds in the memorial park account and distribute it to the twins upon written request accompanied by invoices. So anyone can see where those funds are going. It's just not a joint a lump sum payment. It's going to run much as we do with other nonprofits. And finally, it obligates the twins to provide a copy of its tax returns to the city each year. So again, that was prop that was approved by the park board. So the proposed amendment which is before you to the long-term lease agreement does several things. First, it updates the term to lease to provide it renews only upon the written approval of both the city and the glacier twins. Right now, as long as the twins are not in breach, the term contin the lease

continues to renew. We wanted the opportunity if things weren't going well, which again, we don't expect that they won't, but for the opportunity to have both parties weigh in on the um renewal of the lease. It provides the city the opportunity to terminate the lease if the Glacier Twins fail to utilize the property for baseball or related programs for more than one year. Things can happen. They might not be able to fill the team one year. We all saw what happened with COVID. Um so if if they continue if they don't utilize the property for what is intended for, which is baseball and programming, then the city can terminate the lease. It um recruits rem removes the requirement that the city inspect the property for maintenance and safety considerations on a regular basis. It does however allow the city the opportunity to inspect the property upon 48 hours notice. It and I think this is maybe the most important one. It provides transparency with respect to the use of the property clarifying that the twins have priority then the school district then the general public. The caveat to this is that the twins are not required to subleasase the property to any entity or entity with employees or contractors who are directly competing with their program. That would be requiring you to have a business and lease space to somebody that was competing with you. And I think that was a valid concern raised by the twins. It caps the amount that they may charge to subleasase the pro property to the school district at a fee that recuperates their utilities, the maintenance required to be performed by the twins during the subleasase term and any repairs for damages caused. So basically the amount that they can lease it just relates to the impacts of them

um subleasasing the property which again they have exclusive use of. And finally, it requires the twins to establish a schedule of rates charged for the use of the property that is equitable and fair for similar types of uses. Um, again, this is just creating some transparency about how they are subleasasing the property and they will be reporting to us um I think at the end of every year or something how what what they're charging for subleasases. So, the park board also considered the proposed amendment. Um, it re it recommended that the city council approve it with one change to language in paragraph 7, which originally read, "The Twins may limit the use of the stadium and stadium land if field conditions present um a threat of excessive damage to the facilities due to weather conditions. The port board recommended that we change that to the twins may limit the use of the stadium and stadium land if the activity poses an unreasonable threat to the facility." Their concern was just looking at field conditions. There might be uses proposed to this land that have nothing to do with weather conditions, but they still are an unreasonable risk. So, there's no financial requirements associated with approving the amendment to the lease agreement. And um staff does respectfully request that the city council approve the amendment. Um, I think Dave Fern said in our um, work session that not everybody's going to be happy, but that's sometimes the way it is, but we really do appreciate the twins working with us and hope council consider these amendments. I'm here for any questions.

Thanks, Angela. We'll start with Steve. Uh, just a couple quick questions, Angie. Um, in, uh, one of the bullet points at the end here provides transparency. Uh the one that starts with provides transparency, the Glacier twins have priority, then the school district, then the general public with the caveat that the twins are not required to sublease property to any entity uh with employee employees, contractors directly competing with the program. Is that clear that that's doesn't include the school district? I mean, I know the school district is called out separately. It does include Yeah, if you actually read the amendment to the lease, it does call out the school district. Okay.

All right. And then if there if something does go wrong, if there is damage, who who assesses the damage and who gets to say how much the damage is? Does that have to be specifically outlined as somebody like you get two bids? And I think that's probably called out in their subleasase agreement, Steve. Um I will let the twins speak to that if they want to. Okay. I mean, I just want to make sure that there's not that we don't provide any of more avenues for conflict here. Um, that that's really my big concern. Sure. Those are my those are my only questions. Thanks. Thanks, Steve. Additional questions, Rebecca.

This is just kind of my background for me to fill in. My background is have we ever had this place surveyed and or appraised? I have no idea, not to my knowledge. Yeah, I'm just sometimes wondering because we have we actually own a lot of property and it might be nice to kind of think about that at some point. And then the other question I had is do we have any liability with with insurance when we're working with an entity like this? I mean, because the city owns the property, are we insured for this purpose, too? We are.

And I believe we're an additional insured on the twins insurance, too. Thank you. Additional questions for Angela. Andy,

um Andy, I think you said they would establish a um the last bullet point in there is establish a rate schedule for use of the property that we would look at that annually. Who would determine if that's equitable or not? Would that be the park board? And how would we come up with that number? I guess I mean obviously they're going to say, "Hey, cost us this much." So, our concern, Andy, is like if if they're and we had a really good conversation with the twins about providing public access, too, to you know, get rid of this idea that this is a private playground. Like maybe people could have birthday parties there or, you know, something like that. Um, and that kind of use is going to be much less uh likely they cause damage than other highintensity uses. I would think it would be something that the park board would review. I'll I'll add to that because within that paragraph it goes on to say with its annual report being the twins annual report to the city um which does go to the park board the twins will submit a list of sub leases entered into the prior year and the rates charged for each. So it's going to give the uh park board an opportunity to look at the past year's subleas leases and question any that seem out of touch.

Thank you. Thanks, Andy. Additional questions? Not seeing any. We did advertise for a public hearing on resolution 26-4, and we will hold that public hearing this evening. Anyone wishing to speak, just name and address for the record, please.

Ray Queen on 2011 Paragan Lane. And um I apologize as soon as I say what I'm going to say. I'm gonna have to take off, catch the second half of the dog cat game. My son's playing it and I'm here. So, here we go. Um, for for nearly 30 years, this has weighed on my heart, and today it's time to speak plainly. The Glacier Twins were granted a one-year per $1 year per lease on our city-owned Memorial Park. That agreement was meant to support youth baseball to expand opportunity, not restrict it. Today, the program has dwindled to just 11 players, one kid from Whitefish, when historically we've seen 30 or more with a good balance between Columbia Falls and Whitefish. Meanwhile, our public school is paying $7,400 annually from its athletic budget just to play five football games on city property. That is taxpayer money flowing into a nonprofit organization's general fund. This is not partnership. It's an imbalance. We're told that there's good there's a good relationship with the high school and the glacier twins according in and the glac with the high school and the glacier twins according to last week's article in the pilot. But of course, a one-sided agreement always feels good to the side collecting the check. The twins provide no mowing, no maintenance for football, no fence setup or tearown. Yet, they require sponsor boards that benefit only their organization. The high school sees no advertising revenue for large football crowds. That's not collaboration. That's control. When the school hesitates to enter a new baseball agreement under the the current structure, we should read between the lines on this. In fact, I think this makes sense. The a school official has stated that they will welcome the opportunity to hold the lease themselves and operate the field cooperatively. I sat down with the principal and the AD

last week. I wanted to get the story so so you guys can get both lanes here. And moving forward, any amended agreement must include clear language guaranteeing operational independence when the high school uses the facility. The twins should not be supervising, directing, or interfering with school-run events. Shared facilities require mutual respect and defined boundaries. Past tensions have shown that without that clarity, conflict follows. This must be addressed in writing in this new amendment. Claims about the excess light and water costs in last week's Whitefish article just don't hold up. After contacting Flatted Electric, we learned lighting costs can range from $15 to $100 per game. This includes football games that have lights on from 6:00 till 9:30 p.m., which would probably be the $100 mark. In the spring, days are long. High school baseball will use the most limited time of the year. The Twins will turn on the lights maybe by 8:30 on a 6 pm game. Last year, there were only a couple handful of games using the lights. According to the White Fish Pilot, the articles also claims high water bills. The irrigation runs on a well at Memorial Park. There's a well put in there. The only I mean in inflated expense claims erode trust immensely. The numbers being presented to justify exclusivity simply don't match reality. Reported inind values $13,000 for snow removal, $65,000 for mowing, $25,000 for plumbing. The list goes on and on. This raises serious questions. sudden spikes of 300% of inind values that never happened. Where was the oversight on this? Where was the accountability? And let's be clear about fundraising.

Community funding act equipment belongs to the community, especially when using Whitefish taxpayers money. During my 14 years as president of Glacier Bay Ruth, we raised over $250,000 for facilities used by both Columbia Falls and Whitefish schools without territorial claims. Youth sports infrastructure should serve kids, not organizations. The comment about the kids from Columbia Falls raising money for the netting and letting Whitefish High School players use it as not being fair is just untrue. Community donations benefit all kids, not to deny some kids. There's also a cell tower at Whitefish Memorial generating $26,000 annually with 78% going to the Twins. Yet, our high school baseball team has been able to play on its community field for three consecutive years unless they pay substantial substantial fees. At one point, I was on the board. The original offer from the Twins to the high school baseball was $30,000 upward $30,000 to rent that field. The original intent of this dollar lease was simple. Coaches and players main the field in exchange for access. That was part of their salary, not to create a revenue stream disconnected for participation and community benefit. In other words, it wasn't there to create a living for people outside of coaching. Memorial Park does not belong to one shrinking program. It belongs to this community. It belongs to every child who dreams of stepping onto that field. This is not about tearing anyone down. It's about restoring fairness, transparency, and shared access. Our youth deserve better. Our taxpayers deserve accountability. and Memorial Park deserves to once again be what it was always meant to be, our home for all. And thank you for what you do.

Thank you, Ray. Good luck to your son tonight, Julio.

Julio Delgado, 630 Carroll Avenue, Whitefish. I owe pretty much everything to baseball, my uh education, my career, my opportunities. So, when I see our high school kids not being able to use a city park that belongs to our taxpay paying base, it it bothers me. It bothered bothers me a lot. And that's why I'm in this fight. In the 20 years I coached the Twins, we had 55 kids go on to play college baseball from junior college to D1 all-ameans. Six got drafted by major league ball clubs. The opportunity in baseball is greater than pretty much any other sport. I coached basketball the same amount of time, 20 years. I had great teams. Five kids got to play college basketball. So, the opportunities in baseball are greater. And that's why I'm here. Why would you fight more baseball? Why would you fight the same feeder programs that are going to get those kids to play during your summer program? Why would you not cooperate? Why would you not want them on your field? Those are questions that they have to answer. And I don't get it. I really don't because I'm all about more baseball, not less. So, let me go into this agreement here that really gives you more questions than answers.

Article one. If the Twins cease to utilize the stadium and the stadium land for baseball or related programs for more than one year, the city may terminate the lease. Okay. What's related program? Does that mean a legion team, a full legion team, or does that mean tryyouts? Is that good enough? or working five kids out out there all summer long or there are adult league. Is that good enough to keep the lease? That needs to be spelled out. This the twins shall shall have the exclusive rights to use the stadium and the stadium land. Exclusive. Exclusive. That's why they can lock it up. That's why they have cameras everywhere. Okay. Use of the facilities by other organizations or entities shall require the approval of the twins and the Whitefish Park Board secondary with provisions for the use defined in the subleasase agreement. So, you're again going to allow them to subleasase a city park. a city park. They're going to be able to go ahead and charge whatever they think is fair. We've been down that road. Ray commented on that. $6,000 to use the facility for baseball. 7,400 to use for football. He gave you how much the electricity costs. They're on a well in in April, March. Okay. You don't have the water running. You're not watering the field.

Must be a lot of flushes in the toilets to use that much water. $6,000 worth. Okay. And then you go on to the next one. Fee that recuperates the cost of utilities, lights, electric, sewer, water, garbage. Maintenance required to be performed by the Twins during the subleasase term. Equipment, labor, materials, and any repairs cost, damage occurring from the use. Any baseball coach worth his grain of salt knows how to field, how to fix a field. You got a little dirt, a little diamond drive, okay? A rake, you've got some sod if you have to replace sod. It's not rocket science and it's not Yankee Stadium. So, anybody can repair a field, but that's where the inind contribution will come in. They can charge you whatever they want. $150 an hour to fix that field. Where's the limit? The Twins will establish a schedule of rates charged for use of the stadium and stadium land that is fair and equitable for similar types of use. So, they're going to go ahead and tell you the park board, okay, what is fair and equitable and who's going to check on that? You know, we've heard all this, you know, inind contribution, $65,000 for mowing the the field. That's 65 days at 1,500. The Twins may limit use of the stadium and stadium land if field conditions present threat of excessive damage to

the facility due to the weather conditions. The twins may not unreasonably deny Whitefish School District access to the stadium and the stadium land. Vague. So what happens if the high schools got games scheduled and it rained in the morning? Who makes the call? The Twins or does the high school? Those teams are traveling from Missoula, Hamilton, whatever. They have to know in advance. So for them to meet making the call and have full control is it's just unreasonable. That's why last time when I spoke in front of you, I said, you know, it it would be so easy to turn the meters on for the high school when they have control of the facility. Turn the water, the meters, walk the field. any damages, the school is responsible. They have to fix it. So simple. But to allow them to have total control of a city park, okay, and total say of what goes on there is it's just not right. It's between right and wrong. It's they're locking up that field. Those kids should have an opportunity to play. They should be able to walk outside that high school, be able to practice, which is not mentioned here. How many practices do they get? Do they get to even practice on that field? They should be able to walk outside that high school instead of having to drive over to Smith Fields, pay $3,800 or whatever. They shouldn't pay any more than the twins. $1. One dollar to use that field. They're taxpayers. just like everybody else. $1.

And if there's any damages, they need to make it good. The school, I just have a couple more things. I'm getting long- winded again. You know, they mentioned taxpayer that it's not taxpayer money in the in the in the article in the pilot. You know, as as far as I know, every kid that plays, their parents pay taxes, their businesses pay taxes. That cell tower is on property that is owned by the taxpayer. And that just brings up another thing. You got $26,000. It keeps increasing. And I don't know what the new negotiations was with with Verizon, but just because it was their idea, they get all of it. Why not help all the baseball in Whitefish, Little League, Babe Ruth, and Legion? Why do they get it all? By the way, during these negotiations, my understanding is the school was asked if they wanted to to use Memorial Field. They said not under the same conditions. That was what they said. Not that they didn't want to use the facility, but not under the same conditions. And those conditions were the twins micromanaging every move they ever made. If a blade was out of grass or out of place, they they were getting absolutely made to feel uncomfortable. Same thing happens to the Babe Ruth program. The Babe Ruth program is in the lease. When

I was involved, the Babe Ruth ran their regular season through Memorial Field. Every Tuesday and Thursday, they played they played three games last year finally. and that was during the tournament. Okay, we're not going away. We're going to stay after this until our kids, the kids in this community can use a city baseball field like it was meant to be used. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Julio. Appreciate the comments. How many folks from Glacier Twins are here to speak tonight? Okay, that's fine.

Hi, my name is Johanna Mueller. I live at 1850 Whitefish Village Drive. I want to start by saying thank you to everybody who has partnered with us over what has been an incredibly difficult year. This group of volunteers puts in countless hours with integrity and honor. And we have suffered at the hands of Julio and Rey and some other cohorts who seem to have now dropped out of these conversations. We have been accused of stealing. We have been threatened with warrants. Our children are hearing commentary when they are in school. I have two boys who play baseball. My oldest son played the first year of Whitefish High School. At the same time, I was becoming involved in the Twins because he also played for the Twins. He has played for Blades private program and he worked for Blades program. My younger son has played youth baseball. He has played for the Twins and he is a a freshman this year and he is working towards a position both in the high school and with the Twins for the summer. I find it difficult to get an answer from Julio regarding who he represents because I represent baseball players. I do the work. These guys do the work. I sit in the concession stand raising money all summer long in the heat for the Twins. I collected donations and spent Wednesday night at a fundraiser for the high school baseball program. I have a unique insight into the reality of what is taking place here and it is not what is being represented by Julia or Rey. The whole premise for what he is saying is that this organization is acting acting dishonorably and we are not. We have opened our books to the city. We have partnered with them. We welcome the changes to the lease. We think they're great because they're what we're already doing. It just outlines it and protects

us and protects the city and makes this agreement better for everyone going forward. There is nothing to hide. We are not doing anything nefarious. We are not doing anything that needs to be questioned to the degree that we have been questioned or to be treated the way we have been treated by these individuals. We would like nothing more than for the high school to play on Memorial Field. But there are genuine conflicts that affect our ability to fulfill our duties to Legion baseball and to the agreement we have with you in the city. We take it seriously the condition of the field, the financial condition of the program. It has not been easy to continue to listen to what has been said about us. We are willing to work with the parks board. We are willing to work with whoever we need to to answer to your questions. If you're concerned about oversight, we're open to adjusting as we go through the next year. If things come up that we feel maybe weren't in the agreement the way you would like them to be, we're learning. We spent a lot of time with a number of people from the city learning about inind accounting, learning about things that as volunteers some of us just didn't know in the past. But what I can tell you is nobody is stealing money. We spend countless hours proudly supporting this field. We very much want to work with the high school. I have a document that I'm happy to provide you that I have pulled together from the beginning of the first conversation. The first agreement proposal that came from the then board doing the fundraising was $500 per game. The language is a little ambiguous, but they asked for eight games for varsity and eight games for JV. And depending on how you interpreted that, that was literally between $4 and $8,000. It's not off the mark for what

they're charged. And as a point, when Julio began to approach us back in August, we had a three-hour board meeting. We have the recording. We're happy to provide that to you as well, where we answered every question repeatedly. We apologized for the confusion. We're learning. He continues to bring up numbers that we have explained. We've explained to members of the park board. We've explained to them. We invited them to any board meeting. Come continue to ask questions. Help make it better. It's on the recording. Nobody has showed up. I don't see them volunteering on any of the boards that support baseball in this community. I don't see them at events that I go to. I don't see them doing very much work at all except to come here and speak to you about us the way that they have. So, I just felt like I wanted to communicate that. But most importantly, we have tremendous gratitude for your partnership. We look forward to the partnership continuing and we are open to whatever adjustments make this the best possible agreement for both the twins and the greater community.

Thank you. Thank you, Johanna. Briefly, please.

Then we're going to go ahead and take a quick recess after public comment. Mark Vulker, 128 Park, No Lane, and I'm a Twins board member. Uh, one thing I forgot to stand up in the public comment. Uh, just want to say thanks for taking care of those sidewalks and snow all through January and up till now in February. So, anyway, um, what she said, um, we're a volunteer organization. Uh keep in mind that that lease is a piece of land uh much like the golf course or let's say big mountain on and forest service lease or whatever and then the terms of the lease dictated but every piece of equipment and every building there is was donated basically on Twins program over the years. It's just not a stadium that materialized through the city. It was built by the Glacier Twins and uh on that property that is leased. None of the none of the infrastructure there is in any way part of the city. And so we as Twins board members have to protect our investment in it. We're a nonprofit organization. We've built that over the years. Um the other thing is u Whitefish High School baseball is relatively new. Whitefish School District went into this without thinking about where they were going to play and all of a sudden wanted to play with us uh play with on our field and we have um Joanna might have to correct me here but every year we've offered to let them play. They actually came up with the price that she said earlier. Uh we've never charged more than what it costs and as at cost basis. So, I just wanted to let you know that a lot of what Julio says and Rey I I notice they quote the papers like the papers know more than than we do, but every piece of documentation Joanna talked about there, she has and and

we've shared it with Angela and uh um the park board at all. So, just want to let you know that. Um I got a lot more but I know we're brief so thanks Mark. I appreciate that. Sir,

Jeff Dalan, uh, 550 Lur Road. Um, there's a lot of people in this town that love baseball. Uh, you can tell from the passion on on both sides. Um, I have a son that plays on the high school team. Um, grew up here, always thought he'd play on that field. Um, I think the what Julio said about the charging for the actual cost that it for the electricity, the water, the school would pay for the mowing. You know, the kids would take care of the field at Memorial Field. Right now, we volunteer. You know, we've we've um those those fields hadn't been used very much in years when we first when high school baseball started. Um, we got those fields whipped into shape. Um, you know, Memorial Fields in a much better shape than we started with at the Smithfields. We don't use

Smithfields.

Smithfields. Yes. Yeah. Memorial. Yeah. So, Smithfields, uh, we don't have lights there. We don't have a bathroom. I mean, there is a bathroom across the across the way. We have an outhouse. So, the cost there and the the man-hour and um the amount of resources that are being used at Smith Fields is very minimal. So, I would like I would like an agreement that would allow the high school baseball team to be able to use Memorial Field um at an at cost um basis. Um uh the high school baseball team is not funded by the school. It's a club team. So, we have to do all of our own fundraising for that. Um, you know, and I don't know, you know, I know that the there's a wide discrepancy of what was offered, you know, the the cost that the twins were going to charge the high school. I know I've heard num high numbers and low numbers and, you know, only those people that were in those meetings actually know the numbers. But I think just getting rid of that and not even worrying about that anymore and just go working towards the cost that it actually is to use those fields would be a much better way of going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeeoff. Further public comment this evening. We're going to go ahead. I'm going to close the public comment period unless there's Is there someone online? I'm going to close the public comment period. Let's go ahead and take a five minute recess. We'll reconvene just after nine.

Oh yeah, I need to excuse Ben.

Just waiting on There he is. I'll go ahead and call this meeting back to order. Just for the record, um, Councelor Davis had to leave and he is excused for the record. Again, the public comment period is closed on resolution 26-4 and I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Mayor, I would like to move to approve resolation regula uh resolution number 2604, a resolution approving an amendment to the lease agreement to Glacier Twins long-term lease of the stadium and land at Memorial Park. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Councelor Fury. Would you like to speak to your motion?

I would. I I want to remove one straw man that has been thrown out here by Julio and and several others. The Glacier Twins has not in the past nor is proposing now to charge the high school for any more than is the cost to maintain that field and to operate it. This idea that they're overcharging because they can is just not true. And I think we need to remove that from any further discussion based on all evidence to date. Um, and then the last thing is I think that this board and the Glacier Twins historically, um, I think have tried to work very hard to include all in baseball. And any kid that wants to play baseball, sign up for the Twins. They've got scholarship programs. Let's have a great time. They're not private organization. just know that that opportunity is there and has never not been there. So with that I would I would move that we u approve this lease and move on. Thank you Frank. Further discussion all those in favor please raise your hand. Those opposed legs on and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks everyone for your time this evening and at the prior meeting as well. We'll move on to item eight, communications from our park and wreck director. We'll move to item A to approve an urban forestry educational banners to be placed on light poles in the downtown district. Maria,

good evening again. Um, this evening I'm seeking your approval to hang tree educational banners in the downtown district. Uh, the parks and recreation department has submitted an application for the DNRC's urban and community forestry program development grant. The theme of that grant is longevity and readiness, planning, risk mitigation, and tree health. So, one of the key concepts of the grant is homeowner education on general tree care and maintenance. And to achieve this, staff would like to place approximately 12 educational banners on the light posts in the downtown district on the existing infrastructure. The banners will help educate the public on the importance of watering, preventing invasive pests by not relocating firewood, and the importance of gleaning fruit trees in the fall. I have included in your packet an example of the banners that we would like to hang. And all banners will be consistent with our existing sign plan through cho our chosen colors, artwork, and fonts. They will include phrases such as water young trees near the root ball. Water mature trees at the outer edge of the branches. Keep mulch away from tree trunks. Harvest fruit promptly and pick up fallen fruit daily. An uh an additional part of our educational campaign will entail partnering with Whitefish High School students to create educational videos. Our goals are to teach the public how to properly mulch, water, and prune small trees. The total anticipated cost of the educational component of the grant is $2,70 and the city is requesting requesting $1,158 in grant funding. The match is a 3 to one and we are contributing 912 of staff and volunteer time and staff and high school volunteers will contribute in kind time as well. Again, I'm seeking council's approval to permit staff to install treecare educational banners on light poles in the downtown district if we are successful in obtaining the grant. And I'm happy to answer any

questions. And Carla um is also here to answer any questions as she is the grant administrator for this project. Thanks, Maria. Any questions for Maria or Carla or can I entertain a motion, please? Rebecca. Yep. I'm move to approve an urban forestry educational Sorry. I move to approve the idea that the urban forestry educational banners can be placed on light poles in the downtown area if we receive the grant. It sounds like a great idea. Is that sufficient, Maria? Yes. If Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Rebecca. Is there a second? Seconded by Councelor Cornell. Further discussion?

Frank? No. All those in favor, please raise your hand. And that motion is unanimous as well. Michelle, which brings us on to item 8B of our agenda, consideration of authorizing staff to proceed with the bidding of Armory Parking lot and open space. And this is on page 449 of the packet. Maria. Okay. I promise after this I'm done. We're not.

As you know, the parks and recreation department has been working on implementing the Armory Park master plan in phases. And for the past couple of years, we've been consistently completing sections of phase four of that plan. Um, as you also know, we have received a landwater conservation grant to complete phase 4. The next two projects slated to be completed are the parking lot and the open space. Staff plans to publicly bid construction of the parking lot and open space in March of 2026. Um, assuming that staff is authorized to proceed with bidding, the following schedule is proposed for the construction of the improvements. We would advertise on March 15th and 22nd, open bids on March 31st, uh do a council award on April 20th, and then construction would begin May 8th with um a hopeful substantial completion date of October 30th. The current preliminary construction cost is $493,734 and the FY26 CIP has identified $792,000 of res resort tax dollars for this phase and then $500,000 is also slated for this project in FY27. So there are adequate funds to be able to complete this project. Uh we will complete review of the final designs prior to advertisements to bid. Um 90% design packets are in your uh in your packet for your review. This is one of the council goals for FY26 and a necessary step in completing the Armory Park master plan and I respectfully request um authorization to proceed with the bidding of this project.

Thanks Maria. Any questions for Maria on her staff report? I would entertain a motion. I will then move to uh authorize move to authorize staff to proceed with the bidding for the Armory Park parking lot and open space. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Further comments? Seconded by councelor Fury. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign and that's unanimous as well. Michelle, we'll move on to item nine. consideration to approve conceptual design for Armory Road and authorize staff to proceed with the final bidding and bidding for construction. Craig, good evening. Excellent. You sure you're done?

I'm done.

Okay. All right. We'll move on. We We'll stick with Armory, though. Um so, this is the Armory Road project, uh which is the next um project, uh road reconstruction project in the resort tax queue. Um, as I think everybody knows, there's surface concerns. There's lack of bicycle and pedestrian amenities and significant influences on the roadway during school traffic times. Um, council awarded the engineering contract to Morrison Merrily uh back in 2024 and public outreach began quickly with a uh website shortly thereafter. Uh since then we've had four project newsletters, four project uh public project meetings uh and numerous individual conversations and meetings with residents and property owners. Um in your packet uh are several figures which provide an overview of the project. Um along with the the estimated cost uh construction cost estimate, excuse me. Um the city's approved transportation plan does designate Armory Road as a collector roadway. Um our engineering standards for collector roadways show a 28 foot wide um road with curb and gutter and sidewalk and boulevards on both sides. Um anybody that's drove driven Armory Road knows that that's not necessary. Um it's not going to fit basically. So given the design constraints along the corridor that um design team determined that a standard collector roadway profile would not be appropriate um we are proposing um after working with the property owners for two 11 foot lanes and an 8ft shared use path on one side. Um the design will also include a raised median um uh along the curve to help calm traffic.

Uh assuming staff is authorized to bid this project uh and finalize the design, we're proposing to advertise and open bids uh in March and award the contract at the April 6th um council meeting. Um as with past road reconstruction projects, we're recommending this corridor be upgraded to include city standard lighting. Sorry, Frank. Um, so those are the the standard 14 foot tall dark sky compliant uh LED street lights. Uh, the public works department will work with parks and wreck as we have in the past um and the tree committee to determine future tree planting in the boulevards. Um, the project will be bid um just based on the um the construction constraints to be closed to through traffic for the entire construction season um which is intended to be this summer. Uh this will allow residents that live along the roadway to access their properties, but it will not allow vehicles um to drive through the construction. Um the project, uh as I mentioned, is slated to be paid for by resort tax funds. Uh the estimated construction costs are $6.4 million. Um this does include a 20% uh contingency. Um and the only other thing I will mention is that we are going to do an additive alternate on this project. to um remove the bridge at Cow Creek and increase the widen the sidewalk along East Second Street. And that's an anticipated $150,000 um additive alternate. So, um based on the guidance and direction that we've had from council, the resort tax committee, and public outreach, I respectfully request that council approve the preliminary design for Armory Road and authorize us to proceed with bidding.

Thank you, Greg. Any questions for our public works director? Rebecca Craig, is this the most expensive road we've ever done? It just seems really high. It is. Yeah, it's it's almost a mile of roadway. Okay. Just because it's complicated, too. Well, yeah. I mean, there's not there's some pretty deep storm water that's included in this. You know, we're going to have storm water as deep as about 18 feet. And so that that gets pretty expensive. Um but it's it's just a lot of reconstruction. Andy,

so I'm assuming given the size, our biders will be a little more limited probably. Yeah, I would expect that we're going to see three maybe,

you know, LHC, Sandry, maybe Knife River, um Watson Excavating that's done our last two projects, um Caro and E6 Street likely won't have the bonding capacity for this project, but uh we may also see some, you know, some biders from out of the valley, you know, given the size of it. Um, I haven't, you know, on once we advertise the bids and we we get it out there, we'll see who, you know, who pulls plans, but yeah, I think it's going to be a more limited um bidding audience. Further questions, Steve? Um, so how does how does the road width compare to what we did on Caro?

It's going to be very similar. Similar. So it's not a full width, correct? It's and the sidewalk's only on one side. Yep. It it's going to look the the profile will look very similar to Caro. I think Caro we wound up with 10 foot lanes as opposed to 11 foot lanes. Okay. So, it's about a foot wett wider. Okay. It'll be a shame if Watson doesn't isn't able to bid that because they did a great job on Caro. Yeah, they did. I agree. I would entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve uh the Oh, the completion of the project as stated. Thank you, Jeppe. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Norton. Two comments. I'm glad to see Cow Creek Bridge is going to be removed, Maria, and I appreciate staff thinking outside of the box and we are considering replacing that bridge because I'm sure this is going to be a much lower cost than that alternative. And then secondly, I know it's not a component of this project nor probably in the near future, but there are so many families with young kids that live further east on Armory Road that have expressed a lot of interest in having someday their kids the ability to walk or bike to school and to the parks. And I would hope down the road we can hopefully extend that shared use path. understanding it's a complete street section reconstruction from my impression just looking at the the ditches and the drainage etc. But just something to keep on our radar. I think it would be a great amenity for that neighborhood.

So this project will go all the way to the eastern extent of the Armory Park park parking lot. Right. I meant like to further east to city limits. Yep. Understood. those properties that we've annexed. And I know that's not a component of this project, but someday it's it's on my wish list. With that said, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign, and that motion does carry unanimously. You have Dana's report and close. Thanks, Craig. You have Dana's report and close with the packet. Any questions for Dana on her manager's report,

please. Um, Dana, is the roundabout a a done thing or because when we did the Wisconsin Avenue corridor plan, it was only like with that one development that was going on, but is it being re resurrected now then?

So, there is a new owner of the properties at the base of Big Mountain Road and they are exploring with MDT the shifting of Big Mountain Road over and creating a roundabout. um it is not included with any proposed development. This is just uh what they would want to do first and then I don't know what their development plans are. They have not shared that with us. But the complication with that movement of the roundabout was where we were talking to Iron Horse about the fire station. All of a sudden access was an issue. Um but we've talked to the developer um and he's willing to try to figure out how we can make sure we can get fire trucks onto East Lakeshore Drive uh both ways. um because they had kind of a median between the two lanes there. My understanding is that this project's gone through the initial MDT review um and so as a conceptual level and they're moving forward with uh more detailed plans. So it was good timing that we were able to connect with him um willing to work with us at least on the access for that corner of Iron Horse property. Um but it is my understanding that he's been meeting with like the Iron Horse Golf Course. He's meeting with the Iron Horse HOA um and maybe other property owners in the vicinity, but this p this I don't know what company or who it is, but um the ownership is a significant portion of land at the base of the mountain that road

and we wouldn't have any say about whether or not that goes in because it's a highway and we don't have any right to so it's a MDT highway that is on private property and so there really isn't if there's no like the it is in city limits but if it's not a um development part as our understand Angie and I's interpretation I think Craig's as well is there's really nothing the city can say if they're just swapping right away with the state and the state's wanting to do that. And my second question is good news about the Bears and that um they're wanting to do more educational outreach. Yeah. Do you want to tell the public about that since

Yeah. You know, I think just um we've had some really good years of low um bear conflicts or calls and our concern I I kind of spurred the discussion and then um Ryan had reached out to me to talk first and then we brought Justine into the conversation, but that I don't want us to get um I'm going to use the word totally wrong. Complacent. Is that the right way to say it? Anyways, um complacent because we haven't had those numbers. Um and then how do we educate for spring? Um, we've had really good huckleberry years. So, the food source has been there that's not in the city limits. But, if you have a bad huckleberry year or bad natural food uh year for bears, are they going to come into town? And we do know they're still coming into town and the garbage cans are holding up, which is great. Um, that's actually more of the reports that Justine's been getting, but just being able to continue that education throughout the year, you know, fruit gleaning and whatnot. So, um, we're working on that together. Um, and we'll see what we can do. Um, seems like education is my new um, go-to based on our meeting today, John. So,

just happy

just a couple of quick comments. First of all, congratulations, Maria, Jenny, and Carla in becoming our next certified parks and recreation professionals. So, good job. Um, another quick comment is that uh, by the way, peoples and carnivores, who who meets with peoples and carnivores? Good job, Dana. Uh, another quick comment is on the goals for the city council, which are really have to be implemented by the staff. I see that there is no goal left behind. Meaning all the goals that had deadline passed have been executed upon and some ahead of time. There is one that I think was due in July or November 26. So great job to the staff on that front too. My my only one I'm brazing every year is how we going to measure 50% degree decre decrease in in gases um on the on the sustainable

um plan because I I've never seen a baseline to start with. So I I want a result to measure it and I understand that uh Craig's deputy uh person is the one that is going to do it. That's why we cannot hire one. Right. That's a challenge. Al all done. Thank you and good job. Thank you Jeppy. Dana, anything additional to report on?

Um I just want you guys to get prepared. You'll see later in this agenda, you've got the budget calendar to look at, but that also means I'm going to be reaching out to you guys to uh discuss preliminary budget thoughts in March. So, watch your emails, please, and I can so I can meet with you and bring you up to speed. Um, this year is going to be difficult with the property tax changes. And um I I will have no idea how to estimate it at this point because the state I don't think and the counties don't even know how they're going to do it. So, um, based on my conversation with other municipal, um, employees and contractors. So, we will see, but, um, that also goes to the resort tax discussion, um, for property tax relief. So, hopefully once we figure out how they're going to do it, we'll have more answers to proceed with that project as well. But watch your emails for that, please. Thanks, Dana. Uh, on that note, you do have under item 11A, approving the tenative FY27 budget calendar. And just of note for the council, we have two tenative budget work sessions for you. The first being May 26th and the second being June 8th. Please do everything you can to try to make those meetings. Dana, anything you'd like to comment on regarding the budget schedule.

Um I think it's going to be another year where we have to hold a work session after August, the first Monday in August when we get our taxable value. So I'm going to reserve that one. Um I think it is that day. Actually, it's always the first Monday. So yeah, it'll be your first Monday where hopefully I'll have the taxable value by then. So we can really talk about it again this just with the tax changes. We just don't know how it's going to affect it. So I want to just prepare you that we'll probably hold another budget work session in addition to those but during your regular work session schedules. Great. Thanks Dana. I would entertain a motion to approve the FY27 budget schedule. So moved. Is there a second? Second.

Seconded by councelor Calabiano. Further discussion. All those in favor please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. Michelle, you have three letters enclosed with the packet. Are there any comments on items 11B through D? And not seeing any, we'll move on to counselor comments and my comments. And who would like to start tonight? How about Rebecca? Okay. Um, hello everybody. Mixing it up a little bit. Oh, okay.

Yeah. Um I I would be okay with deer crossing signs on Wisconsin. Um um Toby keeps bringing up the same things. We are moving ahead a little bit with the EV, but is there no movement forward with wrapping those utility boxes? I mean, he's brought it up maybe five times. Heart of White Wayfish is working on that and we expect to see a proposal from them I would say in the next couple meetings. Yes. Was supposed to work with him on that. Okay.

Um and I thought I thought Ka's letter was quite beautiful about her family history with um uh Nazi Germany and we're just in a pivotal time right now. And so everybody take care of yourselves too. That's all. Thanks, Rebecca, very much. Andy, any comments tonight?

Uh, no, just a quick one. I want to remember Jim Atkinson, who was a long time councilman in Cal Spell, served 29 years, probably somebody that served even longer than me for goodness sakes. Um, passed away this about a week and a half ago. And I worked with him a lot when he was on the call council when I was mayor. And really, really nice man. and worked uh at the high school I believe for a while in special education and then also worked for Flathead Council on Aging and uh so I just like to remember him and we should always remember that Clifford Persons passed away about a week and a half ago and I think many people in this community know Clifford and he's going to be sorely missed and was an integral part of this community from literally the day he was born until he passed away just recently. So that's my obituaries for the evening. So

thanks Andy Frank. Um nothing further this evening. Mr. Mayor, I just say again thank you for uh taking the initiative for that. I would like just like to say thank you again for taking the initiative on the proclamation. I think it was just important. Thank you. Very welcome. Thank you, Steve. Uh yeah, just a question for um my uh my pet project, the streaming issues. Are we any closer to being back on YouTube live? Because I get requests every week for YouTube live where people can just watch and not have to log in and do all that stuff.

Sure. Um well, we've I think successfully run some meetings, so we haven't had anybody speak from online tonight. So, um I think our technology challenges have improved. Um so it can definitely be something we start discussing.

Okay. So we'll start discussing it again and we'll see how how long it takes to get it back on. Okay. Um uh the other thing uh I you know I feel like there's one piece of the puzzle that might be missing for me especially with land use and that is looking at what areas um are going to change in terms of either upzoning or down zoning in this uh in the land use section because I don't have a good grasp on how how those neighborhood areas or whatever the term is that they're using correspond to underlying zoning in those areas and whether or not we're going to be seeing property, whether we're going to be whether we're not going to have the same sort of entitlement in areas in terms of what people can build and that I think I'd like to see some sort of analysis of each of those land use areas. I forget what the term is that they call them and what you know how that's going to affect the underlying zoning in those areas. So I don't know how much work that is, but I um and I may be a minority of one here, but I I think that's a missing piece to the understanding the land use piece of the growth policy. U and the last thing I'll just close on a happy note. Um my daughter swam in her last conference meet last weekend. I got to go down. I was there almost an entire week in Grand Junction and she walked away with five more conference championships, bringing her total to 16 conference championships overall in four years, which is pretty darn good.

Fantastic. And a month from now, I'll be in um everyone's favorite vacation spot, Evansville, Indiana, for uh the national championship meet where she'll go on and hopefully maybe become an all-American again. So, congrats, Steve. Thanks, Jeppe. Thank you, Jeppi. I have nothing further to add as well. Dana, anything additional from staff? Thanks to all of you for what you do. Thanks, council. On that note, we are adjourned. Thanks.