City Council - Regular Meeting

Poor John has to eat up with the diners.

yeah they're good you should grab one they're pretty good no he's supposed to bring some to us he knows i'm going to go ahead and call this june 15th 2026 meeting of the whitefish

City Council, to order, thanks everyone for joining us in person. Not many folks here, but we also have folks joining us remotely via Zoom. And for the record, Councilor Caltabiano is joining us remotely, and Councilor Quinnell is excused this evening. We will start with our Pledge of Allegiance. Deputy, you're on. Former, sorry. Thank you, Richard. We do have two public hearings advertised for this evening. If you'd like to speak to those hearings, please wait till I call item six on the agenda. Otherwise, anything to bring to the attention of the council now would be your opportunity. Richard.

Honorable Mayor, Councillors, Richard Hildner, Fifth Street, Whitefish, Montana. And it would be an understatement if I said I was disappointed. I was very disappointed in the 93-40 resolution that was passed by the council. I'm still very, very concerned about children crossing the highway there in its present state and in its future state. Today, I drove from Columbia Falls back to Whitefish on Highway 40. at about 1030, 1035 and the traffic trying to turn left off of 40 to go to Kalispell was backed up clear to the Whitefish River Bridge. And there was no traffic incident that I could see in either direction that would have caused that to happen and I can see nothing but further problems with that intersection. So there. Maybe I'll sleep a little better tonight having said that. Your preliminary budget calls for, and the pilot referenced, $2 million for a new roof on the ice den. Before you approve that, I'm asking you to look carefully at replacing that roof, not with what's already there, but examine the possibility, get a bid or bids to make that a solar roof. I took another look at the CAP that we developed in 2018, I think it was, 17, 18. And it points out that the ice rink is a large consumer of electricity. In 2014, the rink used 52% of the electricity used in city buildings and accounted for 38% of all emissions by city facilities, excluding the wastewater and water treatment plants. So I think it's an opportunity to... address the need and the possibility of a solar roof on the ice den is appropriate, and I think it's timely. Also, I know that another facility owned by the city, the O'Shaughnessy Center, is about due for a new roof. And there is not a better exposure for a solar roof than what's on the O'Shaughnessy. And I've mentioned this before, but I hope that anytime you look at our city facilities, you'll go back and reference the Climate Action Plan and its proposals for a more sustainable whitefish and to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and hydro and take advantage of the solar. So those are the two oh one other thing as you know, I'm part of fire safe Flathead but a recent little publication actually is put out by the County but if there's a way to post some things like this to the city's website This is the homeowners to-do list pre-wildland fire and if I'm all about education and trying to get greater exposure for our community. And I'll send one over.

Thank you, Richard. Further public comment this evening? Michelle, anyone online?

Those of you who are attending online, if you'd like to address the council for anything that is not advertised as a public hearing, please raise your hand or unmute your mic and state your name and address. I think we're good.

Thanks, Michelle. I'll go ahead and close communications from the public. Any volunteer board reports from the audience? Michelle, anyone online? Highly doubtful. Okay, thank you. How about the council? Giuseppe, anything you'd like to contribute? Nope, appreciate that. We'll move on to our consent agenda. You do have the minutes enclosed from our regular meeting from June 1st, 2026. I would entertain a motion.

Move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Thank you, Councilor Sweeney.

Seconded by Councilor Norton.

Further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like, sign.

Mr. Mayor, I just had a comment. I brought in favor. I just wanted to comment on the Ford Explorer. That's a nice car. Are we giving it to someone we already know, Dana?

Sorry. All of our surplus items go to auction. And so we use an online platform.

Government surplus. Do you remember the name? Yeah, same.

GSA maybe there's a it's a government surplus website that we will actually post it so that we can get We set a minimum value if there is one deemed necessary usually for vehicles We have one and so that will be listed once approved and we'll try to get the the best dollar for our older vehicle Thank you Further questions Giuseppe

Okay, we have a motion on the table to approve. That has been seconded. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign, and that motion does carry unanimously, which brings us on to our first public hearing of the evening, which will be Resolution 26-16, a resolution amending the Legacy Homes Program administrative procedures, purchase prices, rental prices, and fees in lieu.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. As you mentioned, this is the annual update to the Legacy Homes Program administrative procedures. Each spring, HUD releases updated income limits for the year, which we input into our spreadsheet to calculate the affordable rental and ownership prices for the Legacy Homes Program, which you'll see in the first two tables on page 71 of your packet. At this time, we also update the fee in lieu of providing affordable units in the development using data from Northwest Montana Association of Realtors, NMAR. So this year we're proposing a half a percentage increase from last year's fee of $378,089 to $380,092. And I know this sounds like it's a pretty low amount, so I just wanted to clarify that this fee accounts for the affordability gap per unit, not the price to build an affordable unit. So if someone was making 100% of the area median income, the maximum that they could afford to pay for a three-bedroom home would be roughly $346,000. But according to NMAR's data, that home would cost them roughly $726,000. So the $380,000 fee in lieu just kind of makes up the difference to help cover that gap. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thanks very much, Tammy. Any questions for Tammy? We'll start with Ben.

I just have one. With respect to the rental rates, my recollection of a previous conversation, I can't remember if it was with you or Daniel Sitter, was that there was a change in methodology at the state level about how they calculated some of these numbers. And I know Daniel's concern was that they were starting to drift pretty close to market prices. Any thoughts on that?

That is something that I've been talking to both Daniel and Riss about, and it does warrant further discussion and consideration. At this time, we're just adopting what the numbers show. But moving forward, we are looking at changing potentially the AMI rates to better meet the needs of the community.

Additional questions for Tammy? Thanks, Tammy. Appreciate your staff report.

You're welcome.

I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for Resolution 26-16. It's been advertised. Any public comment this evening? Richard.

Richard Hildner, 5th Street, Whitefish, Montana. I... Cash in lieu gives me heartburn in that if the average price of a home in Whitefish is $1.25 million, and a builder says, oh, I'm going to provide 10% of my build-out, a developer says 10% is going to be affordable. We don't know whether that is affordable for a one bedroom, a two, or a three bedroom. So when we look at what happens next, and that is the developer says, oh, this isn't going to pencil. I can't deal with a home, build a home or sell a home at $450,000. So I'm gonna give you cash in lieu. And so the city gets a minuscule amount of money for cash in lieu and the equivalent of let's say half a dwelling. And we don't know whether or not they have promised a one bedroom, a two or a three. And so I wish that the city could come up with a formula that says, all right, if you're not going to build this house, then give us exactly what you're selling all the rest of them of equivalents, whether it's one, two, or three bedroom, for the same price. And then we can go out and start building houses. But as it is now, we're not getting houses getting a few, just because there's a little bit of money there. But we're not getting the houses, the cash in lieu is promised. And I hope that as you start to take a look at this, you can come up with some kind of a formula that says, no, no, no, no, you don't get a break by walking away and say, oh, it doesn't pencil. Thanks.

Thanks, Richard. Further public comments? Michelle, anyone online?

Those of you online if you'd like to address the council regarding the resolution for amending the legacy homes program administration procedures. Please raise your hand or unmute your mike and state your name. I think we're good.

Thanks, Michelle, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing on Resolution 26-16 and turn it back to council for a motion or discussion. Ben.

I would move to approve Resolution 26-16, a resolution amending the Legacy Homes Program administrative procedures, purchase prices, rental prices, and fees in lieu. Thank you, Councillor Davis.

Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Norton. Further discussion?

These numbers are depressing, but they look correct. Hopefully one day they will improve. I just would make a quick comment to address Richard's feedback. Thank you for the feedback, Richard. My recollection of this is, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, is two parts. One is that The Legacy Homes Program does specifically state that the unit sizes or proportions in terms of number of bedrooms should match what is being built for the market rate portion. So if you're building all two bedrooms, for example, you would supply two bedroom units for the affordable housing units as well. And that's how we generally try to get the right mix of units going forward. And then secondly was the cash and lieu point. I also do not like cash and lieu. And I believe the program does state that cash in lieu is only suitable if the affordable housing cannot be provided with the development for some reason. And that is left up to the discretion of the council during the approval process. So I agree. I think a bait and switch would be no bueno to me. I do believe we are covered under the program as it is currently written, is my understanding. So I am moving to approve. Thank you.

Thank you, Ben. Further comments or discussion? All those in, Giuseppe, anything to add? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like, sign, and that motion does carry unanimously with Councilor Caltabiano voting in the affirmative as well. We'll move on to item 6B, consideration of approving the city manager's proposed budget as the FY27 preliminary budget. in setting the final public hearing on the capital improvement program in FY27 final budget for August 17th, 2026. Dana, thank you.

yes thank you good evening mayor and council you have already held two budget work sessions so i'm going to make this presentation brief so it's not too repetitive for you but also so the public is informed so tonight we're presenting to you a balanced financial plan that's designed to sustain essential public services while addressing our rising operational costs state-mandated tax structure changes, significant capital needs, and maintaining responsible reserves. We have 34 active self-balancing funds within this year's budget. Property taxes are based on our taxable value. This year is not a reappraisal year, so we will only have our taxable value adjusted for newly taxable property and the new graduated tax rates for primary and long-term rentals or short-term rentals and second homes. The time that we will get our taxable value is on Monday, August 3rd. That is the deadline. We can receive that note later. The state's required to give it to us then. So hopefully we would have it early. However, that has not been happening in the past years. So for the fiscal year 27 budget, we had to project an estimated taxable value increase of when we chose 2% partly to more easily determine wages based on our union contracts and our formula used, but that could change and it could change drastically. It could go down, it could go up more, but with a 2% taxable value increase, wages would be set at having a step and a COLA, cost of living increase. So that was the simple method of doing that. and why we chose that. So we're estimating that our mill value will increase to $106,240.96. So with that, when we levy a mill, that's the amount of money that we receive. For this year's budget, we do have a proposed increase in our taxes that we will be levying of 10.1 mills. We had to do this to balance a lot of the challenges we're facing this year. collective bargaining agreements that are continuing to address our lagging wages. All of our union positions will be at 100% of market based on the study that we had done in 2024. Health insurance premiums are increasing for everyone 5%. Investment earnings are projected to decrease slightly due to market changes. Aging fire apparatus needs to be replaced, and those costs are continuing to rise every year we delay. The Stumptown Ice Den needs a new roof, and not just a, to clarify for the public who thinks that we're just replacing the metal, why could it be $2 million? It is a full reconstruction, a removal of it, and then replacement of it. It's not a simple asphalt sheeting or metal sheeting to be replaced. It's a significant project. Property tax relief from resort taxes is projected to decrease slightly. We'll have final numbers at the end of this month, and so we'll be able to fine tune those numbers more, but right now we're projecting a decrease because last fiscal year we gave it back additional property tax relief due to the payoff of our Haskell Basin bond. Then we're also continuing to see rising costs for supplies, materials, and software. Software is probably one of the areas that we see increases the most and every business is facing that just like we are. So we're projecting to need an additional $1.1 million in new property tax revenue. That's offset by a decrease in the property tax relief, because if you recall, property tax relief, when we are giving it back to Individuals and they see it on their tax bill if you go and look at it We actually have that money sitting in our general fund to utilize and then we're also bringing the property tax revenue in So when the revenue for a resort tax relief goes down That means the amount of money we have available in our general fund goes down We have to make it up with property tax revenue. It doesn't mean there's new money coming in It is simply keeping us flat so of the increase in our property tax revenue About 3%, 3.18% of that, or 1.66 mills, is directly related to resort tax relief going down from last year. We also are addressing the capital projects that we have coming up. We have the ice stand roof replacement, which is 1.8 mills. We have the fire pumper, which would be equivalent to 0.3 mills. And then we have the ladder truck that's already been on order. based on council direction and that again is 1.8 mills because they're both about two million dollars the ice den roof replacement and the ladder truck and so by levying these mills one will be able to pay some of the ladder truck with cash but also be able to have that levy in place for repaying the debt because we do anticipate taking out an intercap loan to finance that purchase. The tax rate changes enacted by the state of Montana have significantly shifted the distribution of taxes among the type of homes in our communities. Second homes and short-term rentals will experience a substantial increase in their property taxes. Even if we were to not increase taxes, their taxes would go up because there is a shift of who's paying the tax. Primary residents and long-term residents will still experience a more modest increase. A million dollar home with this proposed budget would see about $4.50 a month increase, whereas a second home, because of the shift in the valuations of who's paying tax, theirs would be closer to the $57 or $58 a month. And so that's the big shift. It's really based on the state's changes, not so much the city. So even with the tax increase that we're talking about right now, in calculating what the impact would be for primary residents or long-term rentals, many residential properties will be paying less in city taxes and assessments than they did in fiscal year 2020. And so part of it's also because we have a street maintenance district assessment that's being kept the same as fiscal year 26. The residential lighting maintenance district will actually be reduced 5%. Stormwater maintenance district assessment will be reduced by 20%. And then for commercial properties, we're also reducing the lighting maintenance district by 10%. And the assessment for parks and greenways is going to be increased by 3%. So when we take all of those into consideration, it's important to know that that's what shows up on your tax bill. And it's gonna vary by property on the assessment, so it's hard to say this is the exact change to a million dollar property, because it really depends on how much front footage you have on a road and so forth. So with that, though, we are able to fund the budget requests that we have this year. We will have a fund balance for property tax supported funds ending fiscal year 27 with about 2.7, or 2.7, 27.98% of total budgeted expenditures. So we still have good cash reserves. We are still spending down for operational costs. However, it's less than the prior year. And then overall, the fund balance will remain strong, even though we're going from 35% down to 27%. Now keep in mind, this is based on preliminary estimates of where we'd be with cash balance at the beginning of the year. Our directors and departments always have savings, or usually have savings, I should say. And so we will probably see that number increase if nothing else changes. So for compensation-wise, as I mentioned, we set taxable value at 2% because it made it easier for determining wage increases. All employees would get a 4% increase comprised of a 2% cost of living and a 2% step. As I mentioned, we have two unions that are in their collective bargaining agreements. We'll be bringing their positions to 100% of market. For police, it would be an additional 2% step on top of the 4%, that's a cost of about $41,000. And then for fire, they will get a 5% range increase, which is equivalent of $133,000. So you can see the amount of revenue needed, some of it is due to wages. We are a service organization, so we aren't selling product, but we are selling service, especially with those two departments. For non-union, we did include a 2% market rate adjustment to bring the non-union wages to 97%, but not to 100%. Partly due because mayor and council wages will be increasing 5%, so it felt difficult for me to bring non-union up only four and then council up 5%, but also because we want to, based on our wage compensation philosophy, we are trying to pay market rates. So the council's philosophy that was adopted is that we should be working toward market rates. So to minimize that impact, I did 2% instead of full 5% to get them to 100% given the budget constraints. We already mentioned health insurance going up. There are added positions. One is actually the school resource officer that was hired in fiscal year 2024 we had a COPS grant that helped pay for that position, and the school district helped pay as well. So the grant and the school split the cost of that position until this fiscal year, where we are having to take on 50% of that cost. That's about $70,000. a year that it'll cost us, but with that grant agreement and the MOU with the school district, we have to fund this 50% this year. Then in future years, if you still wanna cut positions in the police department, that would be the next step, but I do not suggest making any cuts to that position based on that agreement. The library has requested the reclassification of a part-time library technician to increase the hour six hours per week to become an assistant library director. The municipal court judge has requested their part-time position of 19.5 hours a week to become a full-time court clerk position. And then we have a new mechanic position that would help service the police and fire departments as well as public works because of just the demand and need for reliable timely repairs. And then our Parks and Recreation Department has a seasonal position that's proposed to move to a year-round weekend park position to help be available to respond to requests for special events and then provide more effective maintenance during the weekends year-round. So with that, I'm not going to belabor much more. Our expenditures are increasing, but overall, our expenditures are only increasing about 5.5%. Inter-fund transfers are increasing about 17.5%, which is only equivalent of 1.3 million, and that's just because we're moving the tax revenue that goes into the general fund for these capital levies, we're moving that out to the other funds and then also moving the money from the general fund to Police and Fire to help pay for wages. So our capital projects are continuing to be paid with cash or grants as much as possible, but we are using financing for longer, useful life items, like the ladder truck, like a fire pumper, because then it helps minimize the impact to taxpayers today when they might not be utilizing that piece of equipment 10 years from now if they move. It does provide some consistency that you're having like what we do with water and wastewater. We wouldn't pay for it with cash all in one year because we know that there's a useful life beyond this year and that taxpayers can pay overtime for that. So with this, we're maintaining our core services. We're investing strategically in our infrastructure. We're responding to our evolving community needs and the growth that we've experienced. And then we are really focusing on continuing to provide our high quality services to our community members. And so with that, Thank the department directors. Huge thanks to Laney for the work that she did on our budget this year. Again, every year it's like more and more weights lifted off of me, so fantastic work, Laney. And then thank you to the mayor and council for considering this year's budget, and I'm looking forward to your review and guidance and consideration This is the first step of adopting the preliminary budget where we can continue to spend starting July 1 for regular operations. Any new positions, any capital projects, we don't move forward with until you do the final adoption. And we do that because we don't get our taxable value until the first Monday in August, so we really don't know if this is our budget or not.

With that, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Thanks, Dana. Any questions? No commentary, please, until we hold a public hearing. Any questions for Dana? Ben.

Tell me if this is not the right time, but I would appreciate an opportunity to get educated a little more about the ice den and what the city's obligations are there and why.

Sure. I might have Maria jump in on what the actual project, she might be able to describe it better than I can. So currently we have a management agreement with the Whitefish Sports Facility Foundation who operates the ice den. They manage the user groups, they manage the public skate, they manage everything within the building itself. The city, however, is responsible for maintaining the exterior, the roof included. And so that is why the obligation falls to the city and not the Whitefish Sports Facility Foundation. We are working with the Whitefish Sports Facility Foundation to update their management agreement, to put in a term, to clarify what the reserve funds can be used for to allow for us to utilize funding from that in the future, but right now, The responsibility does fall to us. We've asked them if they are willing to contribute to this project. And as of right now, we've gotten the main response has been our user groups do not have funding and we do not have funding to contribute to this project at this time.

And so if you could describe the problem a little more and kind of what if we put this off until an easier budget year to swallow it. What is the impact to the ice den?

Well, the roof has been leaking for many years. And I would say as long as I have been director, as long as I've been in Parks and Recreation, in Whitefish, it's been about 15 years and the roof has been leaking that entire time. We've chased those leaks. We've attempted to patch certain pieces of it, fill holes, but the water just finds its way. It's hard to find where all those leaks are coming from. We've patched many times, and we're pretty sure that there's damage that has been caused from the water over the years. There consistently, the Whitefish Sports Facility Foundation is... finding new leaks pretty regularly. They do have buckets placed throughout the facility. There's leaks that come down on the ice. We've done some walkthroughs with them. They report on it every month in their board meetings. and we've tried to work with them on patching, and they've worked with us on that, but we all just sort of agreed eventually that the roof has met its useful life anyhow, and given the challenges that we've had, we could just take the... the roofing off and then put new roofing over top of it. But our concern is that we would just be covering up some of the damage and there would be more problems. Maybe we would find more leaks and I would hate to invest the money in just putting another bandaid fix over the top. We did have our building manager take a look at the three options as well. And his recommendation was a complete reconstruction of the roof. And so we did get three quotes for those different types of options. And the full reconstruction came to 2.2 million. And that was a little over a year ago.

Is there a design defect in the building that's being remedied? I mean, what is happening?

So I was not here when the building was constructed. So I can't say that it was, that the sentiment that maybe it was not put together, the roof wasn't put together correctly from the beginning. There is rumor of that. I can't give you any validation of that. I think that that's a consideration that a lot of people have because we've chased the leaks for so long. Essentially, as they were placing the roofing in, they drilled through the roofing, and then as you get the freeze and thaw, you've got holes in there that the water's finding its way through. And so then it's running down, and you may see a leak over here, but it's coming from over there. So we've just been chasing it for 15 years.

My last question is, do you feel like the majority of the users of that system facility are citizens of Whitefish?

I don't know that I can give you that answer. I know that our school district uses it. I know that our some town summer day camp uses it. I know that our citizens use it for public skate. I know that a lot of our kids participate in the youth hockey and the ice skating. And I know a lot of adults in this community participate in adult ice hockey. I don't know what those percentages are.

I don't follow up to that question, Marie, if you don't mind. Sure. You know, when, when the ice stand was built, it was never designed or built for a year round skating facility. Correct. It was intended to be a multi-use event facility in the off seasons. So my, my question is how, how much, or can you point to how much now that we're using it as a full-time facility for skating to It was brought to us by the users and the third party manager. How much of that is contributing to the problems?

Before we had year-round ice, the roof was leaking. We were chasing leaks back then. I don't know that year-round ice is exacerbating that problem. They did install a low-E ceiling, which has actually helped keep the temperature, and it has kept some of the water from coming through. I think it pushes it off to the sides. I don't know that year-round ICE is making it worse.

Okay, thank you. Just wanted to ask that question. Further questions for Maria? Rebecca?

Could you address Richard's question about solar panels, please?

I think that that is something that we could explore through the bidding process. We could do an additive alternate just to see what that would cost versus the design that we have currently, if that's something that you're interested in. I have no idea what the cost difference would be.

I think it would be great that I'm just one person up here. The other question I had is I'm assuming we have some liability if we don't get this fixed because people could get injured or the roof could collapse or is there anything like that pending.

There was no concern over the structural integrity of the roof. So I would not go as far as to say that we're concerned about liability risks.

Additional questions for Maria or Dana for that matter.

Yes I may or may I.

Yes Giuseppe sorry.

That's OK. Just the I like where Ben was going, asking about the use by the citizens who are the ones that pay, at least the property owners pay through taxpayers' monies. I know, I mean, I don't expect Maria to know the numbers right now, but if I remember well, the ice den is one of those utilities where we voted, to differentiate the fees between residents and non-residents. So I wonder if between now and the next meetings, we could have a report from the management of the building with the percentage of use. I think at least it warrants taking a look at it, I'd say.

May I respond to that? Please. So the resident, non-resident rate is for public skate, so I'm sure they could gather that information for us, but it does not apply to the user group's rental of the ice. And so the user groups are made up of people from in the community and outside of the community. And so I don't know that they're going to have that data. I can ask them for it, but... that would come from each user group individually. So we could get an idea of public scape.

Thank you. Anything additional, Giuseppe?

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Further questions? We did advertise for a public hearing on what will be the proposed budget as the FY27 preliminary budget and set the final public hearing on the capital improvement program and FY27 final budget for August 17th, 2026. Any public comment this evening? Richard.

Honorable Mayor and Councilors, Richard Hillner, Whitefish, Fifth Street. I realize now that I jumped the gun a little bit on my comments, and I apologize for that. So if you'll just put me in reverse and then fast forward or whatever you have to do to my comments put those in for now. But in listening to the comments about an alternative or a design alternate It's not just the design that I hope you'll ask for, but I hope you will ask for the long-term return on investment. In other words, what would solar panels gain you 35 years down the road in terms of savings to the city versus just ripping the old steel roof off and putting something else back on without examining the advantage and the fact that you'd be consistent with our own climate action plan.

Thank you Richard. Further public comment from those in the audience? Michelle anyone online?

Those of you online if you'd like to address the council regarding the FY27 preliminary budget please unmute your mic and state your name and address.

I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back to the council. Andy.

Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the city manager's proposed budget, the preliminary budget for fiscal year 27, setting our final public hearing and capital improvement program for fiscal 27 on August 17 of this year. Second. Further discussion on the preliminary budget adoption? Andy. I'll make a few comments, I guess. Please. Having been through a lot of budgets, more than I probably care to admit, They kind of are what they are for the most part. I think I've learned that over time, that our staff does a fabulous job of bringing us what we need to do in terms of revenue generation and what we need to do in terms of expenditures to serve our public. And we always find ourselves in a little bit of a weird spot because we have X amount of service that we need to provide and we set a standard in this community of having excellent service. And we have a finite revenue source for the most part. And while I realize that we are increasing this year, and more than we have in the last seven years and i think that's an important thing for us to really be conscious of and we did the same thing with the water treatment facility we kicked the can down the road without raising our water rates for literally twenty years and then suddenly we had to make a ten million dollar improvement we've kind of done that with our general fund budget if you've looked at it i mean we've patted ourselves on the back for seven years in a row for not raising anyone's taxes when in reality we probably should have been following, tracking along at least with cost of living allowance and picking up two or three or four percent and picking up a couple of those mills. And while it's a little bit of a, you know, tough pill to swallow right now, I think that it's something that we really need to do. And I also am concerned that we're going to get attacked at the legislature next time and our carryover mills are going to go away. And I think we're going to really hamstring future councils, not us, Well, definitely not me. But if we don't pick up some of those mills now, because we're going to lose them, I guarantee you. I mean, I don't think that it's going to be even a question. And we've left those on the table, and we've left them on the table, and quite frankly, it would be a huge bill to swallow. We should probably pick them all up, but we're obviously not going to do that because there's not a lot of support for that. And I get that. And I think we also need to understand that we're a governmental agency, yes, but we're not immune to inflationary pressures anymore. just like the general public is. I mean, our costs go up. Think of how much more we spend in the police department. Kevin, you can probably attest to that. Just driving our patrol cars around on a monthly basis right now, double, double, because our fuel costs have doubled. So while it seems like, oh, boy, we're raising it, and we really want to keep our taxes low, yeah, I want to keep them low too. But you know what? I don't want to sacrifice anything that we provide this community in terms of service. And I know the one big hitter in here, well, there's two big hitters. There's the ladder truck, which we don't really have any choice on that, right? We got to buy it. And because we're going to have to build 60-story buildings or 60-foot buildings. Not 60-story, sorry, 60-foot buildings. And guess what? You have to pay for that ladder truck so we can service a fire should there be one in those tall buildings. It's not something we did. It's not something that we are levying on our citizens to make their lives more difficult economically. We're not doing that in any way, shape, or form. The other big number in there, obviously, is the ice den. And I can tell you when the ice den first got built, it wasn't even supposed to be an enclosed facility. It was an open air facility. And then we decided, oh, maybe we'll add some doors. And then it can be a closed facility. Well, then it was a closed facility. And then it's like, oh, it wasn't really built to be a closed facility. So then we went through a large remodel in the HVAC system. We went through all kinds of other things. And while all of that is water under the bridge, some of it frozen, obviously, it's a tremendous asset to this community. And that's definitely something that we can't kick the can down the road on. I mean, as Maria says, the roost leaks since she's been here. That roof has leaked for a very, very long time, and we own that building, and it's our obligation to fix it. And that building was actually built almost 100% with donation dollars from this community. And I can think of at least one person in this community who got a scholarship to a university to skate. And I was a kid that went through Whitefish High School and got out and now he's playing college hockey. We have a professional hockey player that came out of there. And I mean, I think the benefit that that facility has provided this community is huge. I mean, we were one of the first communities in this entire state to have indoor ice. And that's something to be proud of. And I think that's something that we owe the facility, the maintenance dollars that it should have. So with all of that, I'll get off my soapbox and hope that everyone is in. And I guess my last final statement is this is a preliminary budget, as Dana said, and it's a crapshoot at this point as to what our revenues are really going to be. We don't know. I mean, we could be far more flush or less flush than we think we're going to be. And to try and micromanage and pick things out of it at this point I think is – a waste of our time and certainly a waste of staff's time until we actually see what we're going to generate for revenues. So with that, I'll shut up.

Completely agree.

Further comments? Ben. Yep. Just to make sure I'm clear procedurally how this works. So by approving this tonight, we're approving essentially the status quo slightly adjusted, but all the new stuff, essentially everything that's in this list, is really not what we're proving tonight. We would be looking at this at the final budget adoption later this year.

Yep, the only thing that we proceed with is health insurance rates increase July 1. The wages, we will not increase until we get taxable value, so employees go a couple months, you'll see that too, go a couple months with having a reduction in pay, but come August, when the budget's adopted, we do back pay to July, so they'll get that money back, so they kind of have to be able to live those two months. Any capital projects, any new positions, they do not go forward until the final budget adoption as well. So yes, everything on that list that I provided you is held till August once we have the final numbers and then council approves it.

Fair enough. Yeah, I would just, if I could make a comment then. Of course. Yeah. You know, I've kind of looked at this budget with some concern. I mean, I... I think this council has an extremely good track record of prudent fiscal management. Whatever happens with this budget is not going to change that. But, you know, we have, obviously we're not immune to cost increases. But the last couple budgets, two or three, we have had notable tax increases, and I think this one is probably the largest one of all of them. And it has me concerned. I mean, I... These are hard decisions, and ultimately it matters what specific thing we're talking about, but I know in general we're looking at a 21% property tax increase, and that feels very high to me. I think the citizens here have been eating cost increases everywhere in life, and I think it's very hard to pass along one of that significance. I think I've said this before in our work session. I think if I had my druthers, I would like to consider some options to change the trajectory of the budget. I know we're going to be stuck with some cost increases. I don't think there's any way around that, but I think if there's some easy things we could not due with or due with as a future date. Personally, I would like to consider that, but I do believe, and I've just seen this list, so I'd appreciate some time to digest it, Basically everything here is there's nothing to do with it tonight. It doesn't make sense to to really go through this right now It makes sense to go through with the final budget. So I think my my thinking on this is still the same And but I think for now we should pass this preliminary budget and I think we should I would appreciate an opportunity to revisit this in August

And you will be able to, the first meeting in August, we'll hold a work session. August 3rd? Yes, August 3rd.

Great, that was my question.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ben. Further comments or questions? I guess I just had one comment, and I'm not steadfast on this, Craig or Dana, but could we further look at the stormwater fund? I know you're recommending a 20% decrease in the stormwater fee for this year. And I believe the current cash balance is sitting around $480,000. And with the 20% reduction, we're looking at a balance of about 370. And it might not move the needle considerably, but it's basically equivalent to a mill And I'm just curious what projects, and you don't have to answer this tonight, Craig, what projects are scheduled that we need that significant of a cash balance on our books to carry forward? Or could we do some temporary relief of that fund, which is exactly what we did about 18 years ago?

I'll just jump in while you're looking, Craig. So the ending cash balance for the stormwater funds, $923,000, which is significant when you look at our annual expenditures of $932,000. So we have about a full year in reserves, which is why we proposed the 20% decrease. One of the things, and Craig, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 95 percent sure that when we do go to MS4, because that's going to be the question, what happens when we hit population 10,000? You actually go away from an assessment and you do a monthly charge for service on a utility bill. So that's what many of them do in that transition. because then it becomes a more significant maintenance work, is my understanding. So with that, are you asking if we should do more than the 20% or if we should do the 20% at all? More than.

More than the 20%. And I misinterpreted the numbers during the Public Works presentation.

Yeah, that's okay.

Last Monday, which I apologize, but.

I think you could do a temporary... I wouldn't wanna say, so I always caution on reducing things because unless we know the next five, 10 years, it's always harder to increase the assessments than not. But decreasing the 20%, we are spending down the cash balance about $546,000. So it's a pretty good spend down of cash reserves by doing that. But the actual impact to the assessment revenue is really much smaller. Let me get it right. The change in the actual revenue for the assessments is about $100,000 is what we're estimating. So $100,000 less a year that we're collecting. We're spending down for capital, because that's what's mostly coming out of there. We do have wages come out of there, but it's only $218,000. So could you go further than 20%? Possibly. This year, I think you could, but you might have to increase it in future years. I know, Craig, if you have more capital projects, I think that's why we reduced, because we didn't have significant capital projects moving forward.

Yeah, I mean, the projects that we have for this year.

Weeks.

Oh, is that one mine?

Yeah, we do have future capital projects, but most of them are just continuations of what you're seeing this year, you know sump pump collection future equipment You know, we're not going to buy another leaf vacuum or another sweeper for quite some time, but there are Capital construction projects that will carry forward.

Okay, and those are important. I get it, but I just wanted to ask the question Any further comments Rebecca I

I remember Karn saying that when we go to MS4 that's what you call it that it's a lot more expensive. And so I'm just wondering how do we how do we get from where we're at to that. Don't we have to have savings to prepare for it.

Well, I anticipate when we go to an MS4, which is a municipal separated storm sewer system, we're going to have an actual permit that we need to meet for compliance. And so we'll have to, you know, we have all of the outfalls where we discharged to on our GIS, but we're going to have to collect analytical samples for them after every major storm and on a monthly basis. And then make significant changes based on those results and so at that point my guess is we're going to be talking about Perhaps even a third enterprise fund to cover stormwater You know so be water wastewater and storm sewer, okay?

Thanks, Craig further questions on the preliminary FY 27 budget Just that be anything No, I'm good.

Thank you everybody

all those in favor please raise your hand those opposed like sign is that in favor giuseppe yep and that motion does carry unanimously michelle thanks dana thanks craig thanks laney for your work and all department directors on the preliminary budget we'll move on to item seven Communications from the finance department will turn to Laney for what will be resolution 26-17 relating to a $7,297,000 water system REVENUE BOND THROUGH THE DNRC STATE REVOLVING LOAN PROGRAM SERIES 26, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND FIXING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF AND SUPERCEDING RESOLUTION 26-13, WHICH WE ADOPTED ON MAY 18, 2026, I BELIEVE, NOT 206. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. Andy was here.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Yes, you have just recently approved a bond resolution for the South Water Storage Project. And that was just the last meeting we had on May 18th, 2026. The memo in your packet presents the history of this project, but to recap from the last meeting, we started on this four-phase project in 2017 and have been working with AE2S, DEQ, DNRC on design, engineering, and funding for this project. and Dorsey and Whitney is serving as bond council with the help of DNRC. The four phases of this project include building a platform and storage tank, which is in progress right now, as you know. Phase two extends the water supply line to 18th Street. Phase three installs a water pump station on Greenwood Drive. and phase four will install an additional water supply line between 13th Street and Greenwood. This bond resolution is really addressing phase one of this project and the funding needed thereof. Let's see, so Dorsey Whitney is serving as bond council and they ASSISTED US IN DROPPING THIS BOND RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF WHITEFISH, WHICH INCLUDED THE ORIGINAL BOND RESOLUTION THAT WAS ADOPTED AT THE LAST MEETING INCLUDED AN A AND A B OF SERIES 2026, WITH A BEING A FORGIVENESS LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 MILLION AND B IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,297,000. for phase one of this project. It was subsequently determined by DEQ that neither the City of Whitefish's standalone average water rates of $61.81 or the combination average rates of water and sewer of $128.49, neither were enough to meet the minimum requirements to earn loan forgiveness. So the rates that we needed to meet On the standalone water rate was $82.96 and then $136.29 respectively between the standalone water rate or the combination of sewer and water rates. As a result, Dorsey and Whitney prepared a new bond resolution for us that will supersede the one that we approved on May 18th, and it reflects a single bond in the amount of $7,297,000. The loans will bear interest at 2% plus administrative expense and loan loss reserves or charges at 0.25% each for a total of 2.5%. And the term of the loan is 20 years. And phase one of this project will also utilize $1,160,000 in water impact fees. And the total phase one project cost is $8,467,000. Phase two of the south water storage project is $3 million and $2,160,000 of this will come from the water fund reserves and $840,000 will come from water fund impact fees. The staff respectfully recommends that the city council approve the series 2026 water system revenue bond resolution which supersedes resolution 2613 and to proceed with the completion of phase one of this project. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks very much, Lainey. Any questions? Andy.

So, Lainey, if I read this correctly, we're once again being penalized for not overcharging people? That's right. So we have to pay the extra million dollars, so maybe then our rates will come up, and then we would...

Well, and it's not an easy math. It's not easy math because, and Dana was struggling through this with me, when it comes to the average, let me make sure I wrote it down correctly. It is the average water rate, which includes like a certain amount of usage that's anticipated by each household. and included with the base rates. So I think that makes that harder. I think we were assuming a 6,000 gallon per month usage, and then it depends on your line size. There's a lot that goes into that calculation.

Oh, so we're being penalized for conservation, too?

When you have dark homes too, if you think about our second homes that might sit empty, that is included in the annual average rate. So, you know, or the monthly rate. So, you know, it's just, is looking at people not utilizing their water. Um, and we haven't done rate increases for six years. We did qualify for it a couple of years, three, four years ago. Um, and the minimum requirements continue to increase so like we are with that we've never reached just the single water rate but the combined we were we had met that last time we did a bond I think it was in 21 now we are at we're lower and I think it's just because those rates have increased and ours have not because we have not raised our water rates. So, yeah, it's an interesting, but it's a federal grant, actually, and so it's not just DEQs, but I think it's the EPA that actually sets those rates. They just administer it.

Wow. Can we send a letter to Paul Gilman, maybe, or something?

Additional questions? Or I'll entertain a motion, please. Rebecca?

Yep.

I move to approve resolution 2617 relating to a $7,297,000 water system revenue bond, which is DNRC, Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Program, series 2026, authorizing the issuance and fixing the term and conditions thereof and superseding resolution number 26-13, adopted by the council on May 18th, 2026.

Thanks, Rebecca. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by Councillor Sweeney. Further discussion? Giuseppe, any comments?

No comment.

Thank you.

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

Thanks very much, Laney.

We'll move on to item eight, which is communications from our city manager, Dana Smith. You have Dana's written report enclosed with the packet. Any questions for Dana on her manager's report?

Dana Meeker, excuse me.

That's okay. Rebecca.

Yeah, Dana, could you explain where we're at with Juneteenth? Because I was researching that and it was a little bit confusing about what we decided in 2022 and what evolved. And so Dana has given us the possibility of creating a... Well, do you want to explain it, Dana?

Sure. So Rebecca brought it to my attention that she was maybe not sure of where we had come with Juneteenth or maybe had assumed that we had moved forward with setting it as an official city hall. unpaid holiday or paid holiday. And so what I was able to find was that it was initially discussed in June of 2022 and under counselor comments there was direction provided to staff to review it potentially as a paid holiday. We then discussed it at the retreat in 2023, and then again at the June 19th, 2023 council meeting. And in that report, it was actually my manager's report, was that I was working with the unions to try to, if you recall, we tried to swap Good Friday with Juneteenth, We got feedback that that was no for a couple of our unions, and you could change it and their union contracts be different than our personnel policy, but it makes it a lot more complicated for staff to manage that. So the idea was let me see if we can negotiate that change into their contracts. We didn't get that into the contracts. at that time so that's kind of where we've landed. We do put it as a recognized holiday on our website because our offices are still open so we want to make it very clear it's recognized but we are open. But there's never been an official resolution adopted by council to make it a city recognized holiday. The state of Montana recognizes it as a day, it's not June 19th though, it's like the third Saturday of June. So they do it a little different whereas the federal holiday is June 19th and it's a federally paid holiday. Certain cities have adopted it as a paid holiday but not all because the state of Montana does not have it as a paid holiday. So if you would like us to draft it, June 19th is coming up. We won't be able to do anything before. That date passes, but if you did want to do something like that We could draft a resolution where you recognize it as a as a holiday, but not have it be paid because having to be paid Comes at a cost not really of your your non-union staff it is more of your police and fire because they get personal time every time there's a holiday and whereas staff members that are non-union just take the day off or flex a day off later in the week. So parks and rec, we'd probably have some holiday pay requirements because of city beach, summer camp, those things. But in general, I could definitely bring forward a resolution that would have no cost to the city.

I'd like to do that. I felt I mean I assumed for four years that we had already made it a paid holiday. So I was really surprised that it wasn't so at least at least acknowledging it more formally I think would be good.

Council comments.

Just a question for the staff. Oh, sorry, if I interrupted Frank, I apologize. Dana, what is, you as the manager of the team, what is your ideal recommendation?

My recommendation would be at this point given the budget to recognize if you'd like to recognize it as a holiday which I do think is important. We do have a diverse staff and this this was a question that came up among more non union staff than union staff of why we aren't recognizing it as a federally a federal holiday. It's the only federal holiday that we don't recognize. And so. But just given the budget right now and not knowing where our taxable value is, I couldn't say, yes, we're gonna have the budget authority to move forward with making it a paid holiday. I would say you could recognize it as a holiday for the city, unpaid, city hall's still open, if that's your wish. given just where we're at in the budget process, I have a hard time saying, yes, you should make it a paid holiday. We do provide 13 and a half paid holidays, which is more than what's required by state law, and I think with Good Friday and just hearing from the group of people who did not want to change that, and I can tell you why. It has nothing to do with the purpose of the holiday. It has to do with June 19th isn't a Friday every year like Good Friday is, and so I promise you it has nothing to do with anything other than that. It's because they get a three-day weekend versus a middle-of-the-week Wednesday off of work. And so we also do provide a personal holiday every year that I think anytime people could use that if they wanted that day off specifically. And so that was kind of the path that we were going down without being holistic. It would be very difficult for staff to manage three union contracts with different holidays than a personnel policy with different holidays. And I will tell you that swapping Good Friday for Juneteenth and the personnel policy would mean that I don't think we could negotiate that holiday change with a couple of our unions, just given, or maybe it was one of the unions, but given the Friday off. Police, you know, they tend to work every day, and same with fire. It was probably Public Works, just the way I think about how their scheduling works.

Thank you Dana that's very helpful I personally would lean to support Dana's position.

So I think there's consensus to at least acknowledge the holiday via resolution versus having it as a paid holiday is that what I'm gleaning? Yeah. Okay I think we have consensus there Dana.

Okay thank you.

Thanks Rebecca.

further questions for Dana on her staff report or excuse me managers report Dana anything additional to report on you know most of it is in my managers report But the whitefish fire service area part that I discussed in there I have had the request from the executive director to see if the city would like to provide comment to the commissioners to encourage them to adequately fund the fire service area and And just to not put this on the back burner and have you guys tell me yes or no, I did not prepare a letter because I didn't know if that was the route you wanted to go, but I'd be happy to prepare one for you that you could consider at your next meeting. I think in, I really hope that I'm wrong, but I have a feeling until there comes a day that they cannot pay the City of Whitefish under our contract and we have to say you're in default, the commissioners probably won't do much to fund them.

Ben. Do you think a letter from us will be productive or counterproductive?

I don't know that it would help the situation any. I think it's important for them to know, though, that we are willing to stop providing. I think what the commissioners need to know is that the day that we are not paid for the service is the day we will no longer service it, and yes, we go to mutual aid, but we will keep our station staffed because that's who's paying for the service is our community. And so I think they need to understand that it's not gonna be that the agreement goes away and we're still mutual aiding every call. We will keep our station staffed to respond in city limits first as a priority. And that I think is the information they need to understand about the whole situation is that I get it, they don't like white fish, whatever. Politics be politics, but the fact is you're talking about people's life and safety of their homes in these areas. there comes a time where we have to do what's right for our taxpayers and say, if you're not paying, we're keeping our station staff. We did recently have to do that with Eureka and the ambulance was if they got a call, we would mutual aid up there, but we left our station without an ambulance and we've stopped doing that because it's important for the, city residents who are paying that bill to have that ambulance show up instead of having to call big mountain or somewhere or three rivers or whoever it might be to mutual aid so I think that's the only education part that I could see being very helpful and I would try to steer clear of like telling them what they should do for the rate increase but more or less say like hey you you need to listen to the fire service area because here's the outcome in the end when they can't make a payment I think sending a letter if the council agrees that it's

very strong and direct to that point, Dana, would be warranted. Like, laying out the consequences of

Yeah, I think that's what I'd rather go. The commissioner's doing nothing. Instead of telling them, like, approve the rate increase they're asking for, no, that, yes, they want to provide six more firefighters, great, but the fact is the current service model as set up, here's what's going to happen if you don't at least fund our contracts. And I would just focus solely on that.

That's what I am, yep. To your suggestion, yep. Please.

Are they currently in default? Not yet. Okay but in the legal profession don't you tell people hey you might be coming into default and if you do I mean is that cool to say that?

So it was indicated to me that they would be in default in the future. 2029, 2030, some people say now, some people will say in a year. I don't know for sure what that is because I don't look at their books. The day they don't make the payment is when we're gonna turn around and say you're in default, you have 30 days to cure in accordance with our agreement. And if they can't make the payment by then, which timing would be bad with budgeting and how that works for fire service areas, that's why it's important, I think, for the commissioners to realize there is a minimum funding required what extra they're asking for, that's for them to decide with their constituents, but we should stand strong on what we have in our agreement with them, and that was a very carefully negotiated agreement, still not paying the full cost of service, but I think that's where we should at least stand strong on, but we would notify them when they're in default.

Oh, thanks, Dana.

Frank? John, I agree with your focus of this. My only other question is, or do we want to include in any form or fashion, the fact that the calls from the fire service area seem to continue to go up at a very high rate as compared to the calls that we take within the city. And so the reality is that we are substantive. The cost of providing the service to the fire service area exceeds what they are currently paying us. And so the Whitefish City taxpayer is, in fact, subsidizing that. And we always have, so they may say, who cares? But I think it needs to be clear that the fire service area is not even coming close to paying their fair share of the cost of providing services for their area, and that those costs and those numbers of those calls are going to continue to go up. vis-a-vis the city. And so I think that that should be, might be something we wanna reference in some sort of way to say, look, this is, there's no free lunch here. So.

Further comments? I just wanna, Cole, I think your letter's awesome. And to the point, has that been distributed yet?

To the fire service area board but not to the commissioners.

OK. So I think some modifications to Dana's point would be important in terms of if they do become insolvent that we're adamant that our services will discontinue. But very well written. Thank you. Further questions for Dana on her staff report. Not seeing any we will move on to communications from the mayor and city council. I think I'm going to go ahead and start if you guys don't mind. During our work session we did not have time to provide additional direction from the council on the resort tax and community housing program and kind of the summary I noted that we need to provide some feedback on or the percentages or allocations between the rental assisted program and permanent housing, the committee, like the number of seats or representation, whether we do want to consider at a future date a resort tax increase. And what was that last one? whether or not we want requests to come into the city annually or ongoing versus in late February or March to provide more flexibility. So I'll just throw it out to the council for that and we'll start with Andy.

I think ongoing in terms of application process. I think having an annual because things do come up in terms of property availability and a developer or a housing group may be able to act on something With funding, but if they have to wait for a year cycle, then they might not be able to do that. I don't think that having a percentage allocation between program and actual construction or development is a good idea because I think everybody pretty much said it's like, hey, the ground changes all the time. And I think that we lock ourselves into that. going to be locking ourselves into a big problem. The 4%, that's, I mean, I threw that out there because we know that it's worked down in Big Sky, but we have to remember that Big Sky raises a lot more money than we do, three times the amount of resort tax revenue with 25% more, obviously. But they also only have about 450 voters. So that makes a difference too, I think. And the 450 voters are all people that actually live there and can't afford to for the most part, which may be a different deal in our community, I don't know. But I don't think we would hurt ourselves by trying anyway, just to see and you know, we could kind of start floating it out there and see what kind of response we get. I'm sure that we have a rather vocal citizenry that understands how to type and send letters to the editor or the Whitefish community Facebook page. So I guess, and what was the other one? I think that's it. Okay, all right. Thanks.

I am, and the one that we did not address was, do we want a standing committee of three or five? Correct. That's the only other thing that I think is outstanding.

I could live with either one, but personally, I don't even see the harm in doing three, I mean, given that this is a very infrequent... I think having some specialized expertise is helpful and there's not a lot of people that have that and I don't think I think it would make sense to have a council member on there for sure But I would say staff could be a non-voting just helping the committee doesn't necessarily need to vote in it and said committee So it could be a council member in either two or four other citizens Preference three

get the work done yep okay so we'll have one council member staff member and two members at large staff being non-voting is that my understanding do you want any tie to the resort tax committee for one of those positions i'll defer to andy on that as our representative

There's a part of me that says yes, we need to do that But I think I'm gonna defer to Ben on this and I think it's a more specialized skill set than Bike path builders and road builders bring to the table. I

Perfect. We might just have the staff member report to the Resort Tax Committee then, whoever's participating. I would think that would be a good, yeah, that's what we should have. So that's the weird part is, or we amend the Resort Tax Monitoring Committee's rules or purpose because it does say make recommendations on resort tax, so I'm wondering if maybe it's easiest to just pull that responsibility out of the Resort Tax Committee and say, you know, this is covered by a separate standing panel, the housing only portion. so that it's just clear in our code.

I mean, we meet Wednesday morning, so I can bring that up as kind of new business, Laney, right? And we'll just talk about it a little bit and see what the feeling of the committee is.

That'd be great. And then just to confirm, you guys are okay with the community housing committee doing the grant application process criteria and formulating that with staff?

Yes. Okay. I just had one more comment, then I'll start with Andy tonight on comments, but Rarely acknowledged are those that work in this building, in this facility to keep it clean and functional. And I've met them, but I unfortunately forget their names. But I just want to give a big shout out to the maintenance team. They're wonderful people. and they work hard and they work difficult hours to keep this facility up and running and in a condition that's acceptable to the public and works for us. So I just wanted to acknowledge them this evening.

Thank you. We'll pass that on.

Please do. Thank you.

Andy.

First and foremost I want to recognize Jane Solberg who passed last week. Long time resident of this community. I don't know if anyone had a chance to read her obituary in the inner lake over the weekend and it was very fitting for Jane quite frankly and I have to say that she served us for many many years on the Lakeshore Protection Committee. Her family were very instrumental in a lot of the Early kind of commercial development on Whitefish Lake with Glenwood. Her husband, Dick, I certainly want to send my condolences to him and their two daughters, Tina and Janann. Jane was a character beyond, I have to say, my very first council meeting in the old council chambers downstairs. She was in arguing for the concrete wall that they built at Glenwood to hold the bank back. And even though she was on the Lakeshore Protection Committee, she was not going to face that thing with rock, even though that was a requirement at the time. And somehow that managed to get through. That's how persuasive... She could be. So anyway, she will be greatly missed and she was always a huge supporter of mine and just as cantankerous as she could be most of the time, which was great. So I truly love the woman and I'm sad to see her go. Um, notice to Kevin, you've note this, I'm sure because there's been a huge proliferation of those bikes with motors on them on every street, park, sidewalk. And I have seen our officers stopping quite a few people, quite frankly. And it's not just kids. It's a lot of adults too. And particularly on the viaduct. I mean, it's like people are buzzing over on the sidewalk on the viaduct and it's like, it's kind of crazy. So, Thanks for that. I'm glad we actually did pass something that gives us a little ability to at least stop and say, hey, guys, that's not correct. So anyway, other than that, 4th of July is coming up. We won't meet before that. And everybody be safe. Fortunately, it looks like it's going to be wet this year still, right, Cole? I know. I know. Which makes me happy. So anyway, on that note, that's all I have.

Thanks, Andy. Rebecca.

Yeah, the only question I have is for Craig, and it's about the Riverside Pond fountain. There were so many kids playing on the footbridge today, and it's so nice that that pond got cleaned. But I just wondered, didn't we have a fountain ordered for aeration at some point?

We do, in fact, we purchased the fountain and it's been delivered. I'm just still waiting on electrical connections for it, but I'm hoping to have it in by the 4th of July.

All right, thank you. And I do really appreciate the staff putting so much heart into this budget every year. You all do a fantastic job.

Thanks, Rebecca.

Ben.

um two things i had uh the pleasure of attending the habitat for humanity open house over in o'shaughnessy the other day along with counselor norton and caltabiano and some other staff um a lot of interesting things happening over there i uh hopefully get this right but i believe they were trying to do 10 houses a year was that correct and with a 20 million dollar fundraising goal So that's a pretty big deal. To your point earlier about trying to get scale, I think it doesn't all have to be taxpayer funds. I think hopefully if we can activate some philanthropy in this town, that'll help a lot as well. So anyway, happy to see that, and I hope we continue to encourage that to move forward. And then just the other comment I had, I saw outside that there's a – I don't know if it was a gallery or a presentation of the – the rare white loon photo that made the Audubon magazine. I thought that was, I think that's just a really cool story, and I was just gonna suggest if there was a random wall somewhere that made sense to feature a white loon photo that was in Audubon, and say, oh, it could make sense to do so. Thank you.

Thanks, Ben. Frank? Nothing particularly interesting. Craig, I will say I hope the construction on Baker is going to be over in like moments.

The posted closure is through next Wednesday. So it's about 10 days of work that we need to do in Baker to get that water main connected and going up to the tower. Buckle up.

Thanks.

One comment on that, Craig. I was heading south at about 10 on Baker, and there was no signage indicating that you literally just come to the dead end. And I had to cut back through the hotel to get to 93.

So there's a reader board sign at 10th and Baker alerting vehicles that Baker is closed at 18th to use the detour. There was a detour sign at 13th and at 15th, and then we've added some additional signs between 13th and 15th.

No worries, I must have just missed it.

Yeah, so the posted detour has been in place since about 8 a.m. this morning.

Okay.

But we've made some changes because everybody was missing the signs. I mean, people were, northbound traffic was following their regular routine, turning on 18th to Baker and then realizing it's closed and then turning on Commerce. So at about... 8 a.m. this morning, we had traffic backed up trying to get onto 19th all the way to the light at Commerce. And the folks were literally waiting in line to turn on 19th, even though there's a sign that says road closed ahead.

it's because the reader boards have been used for the Highway 93 project west of town, and I think a lot of people are used to seeing those say, you know, road closures that way, but realistically, they're for road closures locally. I mean, I think I was noticing everybody turning to go down Baker when they're headed north, but they'll learn after today. Everybody's finding a different route the rest of the week.

We updated the reader boards last Wednesday, stating that Baker would be closed beginning today, but I think Dan is right. Everybody thinks they're just referring to traffic elsewhere.

Okay. Thank you. Giuseppe, anything this evening?

Yes, thank you. First of all, thank you for allowing me to attend remotely. I know it brings a little bit of not easy flow, but I really appreciate it. And I try to be respectful, not clicking the mic too many times. So thank you. I missed you all. In terms of comments, I wanted to point out that It's in the manager's report, but I wanted to point it out in my comments that 7-15, the 15th of July, Habitat for Humanity would break ground on those two townhouses at the end of Whitefish Avenue. It used to be the end. Now it keeps going. And I have to give them kudos for advertising. acting so swiftly. We approved a $250,000 grant from the Affordable Fund, the program fund, a couple of city councils ago, and now they're breaking ground. Which brings me, the two are not connected yet, but it brings me to remind ourselves that we have a process to create an RFP for the formerly called snow lot development and i just i understand about the legalities and so on but i just wanted to ask dana if she has any update or any uh any word work of news on that

Yeah, thank you, Giuseppe. We do have an update for the Depot Park Town Homes project. Angie and I met with a local attorney to discuss the judgment lien that's on that property. We have issued a notice to the housing authority that they're in default of the contract, even though they came forward months ago and said they're not gonna do the project, we wanna go through the steps of our agreement with them because it's still within the term of the agreement. Once that's completed, we will be requesting that they complete a quick claim deed to transfer the property to us, and then we are working with that attorney to see if we can have the title companies remove that judgment lien. If not, we will go through the court process to do so. In that same period of time, we are finalizing and working on that RFP for the project, and then our plan is to take that to the housing community to just review for the criteria portion of it to get their feedback on it before we bring it to council. So a couple months here, but we're getting close to getting ready to at least issue the RFP, and we at least have a path forward with the property.

Thank you so much. That's great news. I appreciate it.

Anything additional, Giuseppe? Thank you. I was not aware that Jane passed away. I served with Jane on the Whitefish Lakeshore Protection Committee from 1998 through 2003 when Jim Stack was the chairman. I think Jim made all the motions on that committee. But she was a piece of work, a lovely woman. Her heart was in the right place. And every night she'd show up with like a tumbler. I'm like, Jane, what's in that? She's like, don't ask me that.

It was a cocktail. Guaranteed.

And for years and years after, she would call me and ask me to come visit her and Dick down at their lakefront property. I never made it down. So just a reminder to folks to... you know seize the day when you have opportunities to see friends because you never know what's going to happen and you know make the best of life and you know cherish your friends she'll be missed and i love her deeply godspeed to jane um on a lighter note i just wanted to thank kevin gartland for his service as the executive director on the chamber of commerce I spoke to Kevin Friday and he said he actually learned something from us over the years.

I was like oh that's great.

And his last day is July 5th and he promised that he will be at July 4th and he's not going to burn the barge down.

So and I think we'll see him at Oktoberfest.

So with that said anything further from staff Dana council. Thank you very much, everyone. We are adjourned.