City Council - Regular Meeting

Gonna go ahead and call this August 17th, 2026 meeting of the Whitefish City Council to order. Thanks, everyone, for attending in person. We also have some folks joining remotely via Zoom, including Councilor Caltabiano, who is on fire duty. And thank you for joining us tonight, Giuseppe, remotely. I appreciate it. We will start with our Pledge of Allegiance. And Mike Kopel, do you mind leading us? Thank you, Mike. We'll move on to communications from the public. We do have our FY27 budget on the agenda for this evening, which is advertised as a public hearing in addition to the tax levy and assessments, which we will take as one public hearing, if that's okay with our city manager. Otherwise, anything you'd like to bring to the attention of the council that's either on the agenda or otherwise, now would be your opportunity. Name and address for the record, please, Toby.

have a request of you, and that is to request of the middle school perhaps a educational moment for the students there regarding riding bicycles and pedestrians, especially electric or motorized bikes and things like that. You know, it's summertime and the kids are off and they're just crazy going everywhere and I've seen kids ride electric bicycles right down the sidewalk. I mean in town, not on Central Avenue, but I have seen it on other avenues. And it might be something that the city should ask the middle school to either draw up a paper on regulations and proper conduct on a bicycle within the city. That's all.

Thank you Toby.

Ma'am. Hello, my name is Marcella Williams and I'm a resident here in Whitefish. And I'm also raising young adults who I would really like to be able to move back here one day. And I am asking that we allocate $250,000 of our resort tax towards Habitat for Humanity. They have a proven track record of success here in the valley, not just in Whitefish but also in Sea Falls as well as Kalispell. And they have their foot on the gas here right now as we speak breaking ground tomorrow which is super exciting. And I know that there's room for expansion right there. So I would just like to put it out there that housing is one of the biggest problems that we have in the valley. And we have to be able to support our teachers and our first responders and people that really want to live and work here, including food and beverage as well. And I know that restaurants suffered all summer because they couldn't find people to work. And the number one reason why is because they didn't have housing. So not only do we reduce risk of injury because they're not having to travel as far, but we also work to keep people in the valley that want to live and work here. So I'm just asking that you consider allocating another 250,000. put it to use right away and build at least two more homes which that's two more families that's children that would grow up here and and they would really thrive right here in this community. So please consider it and thank you very much.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Thanks Ms. Williams. Jamie.

Hello, I'm Jamie Goggin, I too am a resident of Whitefish, and I would like to say that everything Marcella Williams just said, verbatim, ditto. Speaking as an employer, this has been very real, and seeing housing go up is very exciting, and I think the town is very excited, and I'm really excited that we got your blessing for the last year's allocation to build on Whitefish Avenue, which is breaking ground tomorrow. in a meaningful way and so just wanted to say thanks. This is really, really great. I've really enjoyed this experience working with you guys. The only other thing I'd like to bring up is along Edgewood Avenue at the stop signs of Dakota and Iowa, the grasses are very tall and sometimes the people are very short and they're walking and then they're on the crosswalk. I worry because a lot of people don't really stop. They just kind of touch and roll. So just as a public safety concern, I'd just love to see some of those hedges cut back a little ways so that as people are walking, we see them in time to stop before they hit the crosswalk. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jamie. Alan.

Hi, I'm Alan Wendt. I'm an engineer with AE2S. I'm here in support of the water master plan tonight. I'm responsible for the plan, and I just wanted to talk a little bit about the process we went through. There were a number of alternatives that we considered. Not all of them made it. The numbers actually got quite large and daunting once you start looking at the cost of a lot of these public infrastructure type projects. There are a number of projects that are right on the cusp and didn't make it, but I'm sure they'll be on it in coming years. I will be available throughout this meeting should you guys have any questions for me.

Thank you, Alan. Appreciate it. We'll address you if needed during the budget deliberations. Cameron.

Cameron Blake, 825 Lexan Trail in Whitefish, and I'm also here to support Habitat for Humanity's request for the $250,000 for two more homes on Whitefish Avenue. We're actually digging for the foundation tomorrow, so that started, we broke ground, but the foundation is starting to go, excavation for the foundation is going in. I think Jamie and Marcel have covered a lot of the needs, and you guys know this, but Habitat, I mean, it's a tangible, it's a fraction of what's needed, but it's a tangible start. The four homes, if we improve the two more, will be in place, families in them by middle of next year, which is starting to solve the problem. A long way to go. I just wanted to add that we're seeing incredible community support. As you guys know, the Great Fish Challenge is underway and Habitat's been over 100,000 raised from the community and 140 donors, so there's widespread community support for what we're doing. and have incredible momentum as they commented. I want to make a suggestion that I know on Whitefish Avenue we're still waiting for permits and I guess we can excavate without permits so we're moving forward but everything has really slowed down is my understanding with permitting and if there's any way the city could prioritize permitting for affordable ownership housing I think that would help to speed up what's solving the problem a bit, even if it's a month or two here or there. So I don't know if there's anything that can be done there, but that's a suggestion towards a solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Cameron. Further public comment? Richard.

Mayor, Councilors, Richard Dillner, 104 Fifth Street. I just want to thank Dana and whoever else might have been involved in extending the public comment period for the CWPP draft. Two weeks was really short and hard to meet and thanks for extending that week and I think hopefully that you got more comments and better information. But what I'm also interested in is what are the next steps and what are the timelines for those next steps and the next part of the CWPP? I also want to say that I support Habitat's request for that $250,000. They're out of the gate and headed down the track, and we should do everything we can to keep them going at full speed. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard. Further public comment this evening?

Hello.

I'm Carolyn Pittman. I live at One Tides Way, Whitefish. I came into Whitefish 49 years ago this week. And it's been my privilege to work here, live here, and raise my family here. And many of you are doing the same thing. I think that we have an opportunity now to offer that same privilege to other people, people who can live here and work here. And we can do that through Habitat for Humanity. We have the opportunity to purchase another lot for two more homes. This makes four. It seems small. But there is an energy and an enthusiasm about this project and this endeavor that reminds me of the many, many projects that have been successful in this community. So I urge you to buy the lot. Thank you.

Thank you, Carolyn.

Hello, Matthew Whitted. I'm a Whitefish resident here on Haskell Creek Road, and I'm here to speak about the draft water facility management plan. This plan recommends SCADA and telemetry improvements at Grouse Mountain facility because real-time monitoring would allow city staff to manage those facilities more efficiently and respond to problems quickly. At Grouse Mountain, the plan specifically notes currently staff have to travel to the facility and manually check that equipment and record operation conditions. I would encourage the council to please apply that same standard to Haskell Basin. In fact, the need is arguably greater at Second and Third Creek Diversions. These facilities are miles into the backcountry mountains. During the winter, they require over-snow travel on unmaintained roads. That consumes staff time and also introduces city staff to very real safety considerations. I've done backcountry snow survey work with the USDA. I'm quite familiar with tracked vehicles in backcountry settings and those risks. The telemetry would eliminate the need for staff to inspect and maintain these facilities. It would not, but it would eliminate the unnecessary trips if they're going up on a monthly basis to check on these facilities through the winter months in particular. But throughout the year, there's an opportunity there to be more responsive to current conditions. These real-time monitoring flows would allow the city to actually know how much water is being diverted currently and how much remains in those streams. The information the draft reports acknowledges that there's not well documented understanding of what actually flows in those creeks and what we're drawing out of those. This approach would also directly be consistent with the city's climate action plan which calls for protecting those municipal watersheds and maintaining strong monitoring programs. to manage and adapt to changing climate conditions the draft already recognizes the value of modern remote monitoring elsewhere in the city's water system i'm asking the council to apply that same standard to haskell and those tributaries ensuring telemetry and real-time flow monitoring at second and third creek diversions are included in the water facility management plan thank you thank you matthew i should have

indicated that that is scheduled for a public hearing but we'll take your comments on the record during communications so thank you very much any further comments from the public any volunteer board reports sir evening ryan walther i'm the chair of the climate action plan committee um thank you for uh

commissioning the drafting of the CWPP. It is a very important document. I think anybody who's been tracking the news can see how catastrophic a fire could be to the culture, the community, the economy here. I echo Richard's comments on gratitude for extending the comment period. I think the... The process from now is to incorporate comments, review how those comments have been incorporated, and to share with the public once again. I look forward to that, and so does the rest of the committee. I think there was a bit of news recently from Sanders County that showed that the BNSF train caused a small fire there, which was thankfully put out. uh... i think that goes to show the importance of crossing our t's and dotting our i's on this report uh... and again thanks for your attention that issue uh... and i look forward to viewing the next version thank you ryan and for your service on the committee further volunteer board reports from the audience

Michelle, anyone online? Giuseppe? Council?

Frank? I have one. An update from the Park Board and something I think is incredibly important for this group as well as all public. There's been a request for a proposal for a stage, a permanent stage of some size at Depot Park. And given the history of the formation of that park and how we put it together uh... the park board since there's been a pretty significant uh... press for it there is some public support for it we've decided to take it under or the park board is uh... directed uh... that we do an actual scientific survey of the public to see if we can't figure out what we should really be doing whether we should even be considering uh... putting up uh... permanent stage structure in the park. There's going to be a community engagement meeting on September 16th at 6 o'clock at City Hall. And I encourage any and all of us to attend And see what what's being said because it's I think it's it's a significant enough request and change to how the park is being operated now that That I think we really ought to be paying attention to what's going on Thank you My only comment to that if I may is I think the time has come for us to consider a permanent bandstand and I think it's all about

scale in relation to the park because there's enough demand for that and like our trails etc we either manage it or we don't and i think it's time to manage live music in the park which i think would be a significant benefit to this community i think the public comments going to come out resoundingly in favor with that said yep and that's the reason we're doing it thank you make sure further volunteer board reports rebecca

Yeah just the climate action committee met. Ryan mentioned that we reviewed the wildfire plan. There's some feedback that it was a little bit hard to read and not very user friendly. And so sorry but. So we're anxious about the next stage of what happens so maybe at the end of the meeting we could talk about that. But Richard showed up and talked about fire again and presented another plan from the North Fork which was really helpful. And then there was a tour of the sustainability center and then the teacher that runs that came to the meeting and talked about how the community might be more supportive in using that center to produce more food and we're still working on the I don't know what the modeling using a lot of math on whether or not we met our goals of reducing our carbon footprint by 26% so that will be coming in the future.

Thanks Rebecca. Any additional volunteer board reports from the council? Not seeing any. You do have the consent agenda enclosed in the packet from the August 3rd 2026 special as well as well as regular meeting. I would entertain a motion. Rebecca.

Make a motion to approve the consent agenda without change.

Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Sweeney. Further discussion?

Showing of hands in favor, please.

And that motion does carry unanimously. Michelle, which brings us on to our first public hearing. Actually, if it's okay with our city manager, Dana, we do have the FY26 budget amendments. Would you like to take those as individual hearings or kind of group those along with the budget tax levy and assessments?

So I would recommend holding a public hearing for the fiscal year 26 budget amendments and then a separate public hearing for the fiscal year 27 budget amendments. And that would include all the resolutions under each of those items.

Okay. With that said, we did advertise for a public hearing on resolution 26-22, amending the 2026 fiscal year annual budget. to increase appropriations in three funds of the city, and we will take public comment on this item now. Any public comment? Anyone online, Michelle?

For those of you who are attending online, if you would like to speak towards the amendments for the FY26 budget, please raise your hand.

think we're good thanks michelle i'll turn it back to the council for a motion or discussion rebecca

I move to approve resolution number 26 dash 22. A resolution amending the 2026 fiscal year annual budget to increase appropriations in three funds of the city. Do you want me to read them? No thanks. Okay. Sorry we're trying to get out of here.

That's quite right. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by Councillor Quinnell. Further discussion? Giuseppe any comments? All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like sign. And that motion does carry unanimously, which brings us on to resolution 26-23, which we did advertise for a public hearing and public comment tonight, ordering the transfer of excess amounts in the special improvement district number 166 fund and the SID revolving fund. Dana, anything to add? Lainey? Sure.

Hello, council and mayor. Yes, for this particular resolution, let's see, I had to cut out some of my presentation here. The resolution to increase appropriations of resolution 2623 orders transfers out of the SID 166 bond debt fund to close out the fund and out of the revolving bond fund to reduce cash reserves to appropriate levels staff recommends approval of this resolution.

Thank you, Lanie. We will take public comment at this point. Any comments from the public on this hearing? Richard.

Just a quick question. Does that have a, Richard Hilder, 104 5th Street, Whitefish. Does this have any impact on whether or not we can squeeze the request from Habitat for additional funds or would it affect how we can ask for additional funds for the proposed project that you'll hear about later in the Haskell Basin Watershed? Dana? Does either one of the SID 166 or the revolving fund have those kinds of monies in them that could be used?

So what is proposed here and what will occur for fiscal year 26 is moving funds from SID 166 fund which is a special improvement district for JP Road that has been the bond has been paid in full that has been moved to the revolving fund which then placed the revolving fund into a higher amounts in that fund than legally allowed by state law which is up to 10% of the current outstanding principal and That amount, we retained the amount contributed in the revolving fund for SID 166, which is our only SID outstanding, which is the parking structure. And so that amount of funds was actually transferred to the general fund and is already represented as cash in your fiscal year 27 budget that we'll review shortly.

Thank you, Dana.

It will have no effect on the projects that you talked about.

Thanks, Richard. Michelle, anyone online wishing to provide public comment?

Those of you who are online if you'd like to speak towards the resolution regarding SID 166 funds please raise your hand. I think we're good.

Thank you, Michelle. I would entertain a motion, please, on Resolution 26-23. Frank?

I'll move to approve Resolution 26-23, a resolution ordering the transfer of excess amounts in the Special Improvement District 166 fund and the SID revolving fund.

Is there a second to the motion? Second. Seconded by Councillor Davis. Further discussion? Giuseppe? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. And those opposed, like, sign, and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks, Dana and Laney. We will move on to our FY27 budget tax levy and assessments public hearing. I will entertain one staff presentation on resolutions 26-24, through 26-33, if that's okay with the council. And we will entertain one motion for the actual budget and then one motion for resolutions 26-25 through 33 of final adoption of the budget, Dana.

Okay, good evening, Mayor and City Council. It's my pleasure to present the proposed final fiscal year 2027 budget for your consideration. We've had four work sessions and a public hearing to adopt the preliminary budget. Tonight, because we've had so much work done, I'm gonna focus on the updates that we've had since your most recent work session, and then some of the risk and just policy overall impacts that we have in the budget. So just as a reminder, the state tax changes that occurred with Senate Bill 542 and House Bill 231 introduce a graduated residential rate for property taxes in fiscal year 26. A homestead distinction is in effect for primary residents in fiscal year 27. There is a lawsuit challenging those changes and so we will continue to monitor that. Future legislation may also restrict or eliminate the use of carry forward mills as we have seen similar bills in the past and just in this last session, the legislature limited the amount of newly taxable value cities receive. In response to this risk and reducing exposure, the proposed budget in the council packet prudently captures an additional five mills. We will monitor both of the implementation and litigation around Senate Bill 542 and House Bill 231 just to see how our municipal budget authority will proceed in the future. We do in our budget for fiscal year 27 have funds for a lobbyist to support staff and the city council in those efforts during the next legislative session starting in January. I'm on to the revenue side of things. Late on Monday, August 3rd, the city received its taxable value from the Department of Revenue. Our certified taxable value rose 16.5%, which was driven largely by the state level changes affecting non-primary residences. Newly taxable property accounted for about 2% of that increase. The net mill levy increase of 6.81 mills fund market level pay and restore structural balance without tapping into reserves for ongoing operations. As proposed, the city will use about $2,032,000 of reserves for one-time projects in property tax supported funds. That includes $918,000 for the Depot Park Townhomes project, about $1.1 million for capital projects. Residential property tax impacts include about a $7.76 annual increase for a $1 million home that is a primary residence. And so that is less than a 1% increase. The same property, if it's a second home or a short-term rental, would be facing a $615 increase per year. or for the year to put into perspective though the state changes if the taxable values were still based on the fiscal year 26 tax rates and there was no homestead exemption a home valued at that one million dollars would see a 6.4 percent increase or about 51.66 so that shows for that second home the change is so significant because of the way that they've done the tax rates at the state level. Our maintenance assessments were adjusted based on the needs of each fund while ensuring adequate fund balance. So our stormwater assessment is being reduced by 20%. Residential lighting is being reduced by 5%. Commercial lighting will be reduced by 10%. The parks and greenway assessment will increase 3% and the street maintenance assessment will remain flat from the prior year. We have a lot of capital projects within the budget this year and we're continuing to utilize cash that we have on hand and grants. Some of our more significant capital investments are utilizing SRF or intercap loan programs. And it's with a reasonable time of debt to asset ratio, asset life ratio. Our debt profile remains manageable with no general obligation debt. Our primary outstanding obligations are water and wastewater, SRF loans, and our Special Improvement District 167, our downtown parking structure. The added mills provide tax revenue to support two new inter-cap loans. One is for the ice stand roof replacement, which that is in the budget, but we will seek council direction on how to proceed with that in the future. And then also for the fire department's ladder truck, which has been on order and is expected in fiscal year, I think, 28 or 29. But at least we have the revenue to support that loan when it arrives. The fiscal year budget, it successfully has all city positions reaching market rates that were identified in the 2024 wage market rate study. The standard adjustment is a 4% increase with a 2% cost of living adjustment and a 2% step. Health benefits premiums increased 5%. The city will be covering about 81% of total premiums. It helps moderate the employee impact but also is a cost to the city. New positions are added in the budget, including some positions that have moved from part-time to full-time, and that includes a second city mechanic, a weekend park maintenance tech, a court clerk, and assistant library director. These positions mitigate service bottlenecks, reduce outsourcing, and improve our continuity. Utilities for water and wastewater, there are rate adjustments considered in the budget, but there has not been a decision on what those will be. It is likely that we'll see anywhere from a one and a half to two and a half or 3% increase, but that will be a discussion that we'll have later this fall. Solid waste is contracted with Republic Services, and with that contract comes a 3.25% annual increase. So the property tax supported funds have an ending fund balance projected at $6.14 million. It's about 30.77% of total expenditures. It is slightly above the 20 to 25% targeted range, but that is 5% lower than the prior year. So in short, the fiscal year 27 budget keeps Whitefish on a solid financial footing. The city is positioned to maintain core services, invest strategically in infrastructure, and respond to evolving community needs while upholding long-term financial sustainability. With our strong reserves, targeted staffing enhancements, and focused capital planning, the city can continue to deliver high quality services to residents and businesses regardless of market fluctuations. As always, I'm grateful for the contributions from our department directors, staff, and the city council. This year's budget has been a team effort with thoughtful review, questions, and guidance. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Dana, on your staff report. Any questions for our city manager on the FY27 budget? Steve.

Dana, can you just repeat what you said for me? I think I got this clear. You said that if House Bill 231 hadn't passed where they revised the tax rates for second homeowners, the average million-dollar home in Whitefish, which is about average, would have gone up 6.17%.

Would have gone up, excuse me, 6.45%. 6.45%. About $51. But because of the changes

we're able to hold, under this budget, we're able to hold that at less than 1%?

Less than 1% at $7.76, $7.76 for the year for a primary resident.

As part of the city tax portion of your tax bill? Just the city tax portion, correct. Okay, so that's like 55 cents a month or something for a million dollar home, okay. um and so thanks for that analysis i didn't i wasn't quite aware that it was that big of a difference that's a that's a huge difference um and and you also mentioned that we are going to have all of our employees will be up to 100 of the regional average that that we came up with that we learned about during our wage study correct under this budget and that and then all employees will get a two percent increase plus a two percent step as well correct okay so that's a roughly a four percent increase for everybody plus the other ones that are coming up too correct some are already at a hundred percent and then some will will include an increase up to like five percent additional So we're doing pretty good for our employees at this point. Absolutely. Okay. And then we still have 30.7% in the reserves, or our reserves will be at 30.7% under this budget? Correct. Okay. Good. But that's down from 35% in the last fiscal year? Yes. that is correct okay so we're spending down five percent of our reserves

Yeah, it's kind of a function of expenditures too. So as your expenditures go up, the calculation of what you need in reserves also changes. So we are spending down from what our beginning fund balance is for the year, about $2 million for those capital projects and the Depot Park townhomes. We are not spending down for operations under this proposed budget, which is the first time in quite a few years. But we are spending down for capital projects.

Okay, so it's not something that would be a recurring cost because that's not a good use of our reserve funds.

Most are not reoccurring or they're within your control. It's not like a position that you would have to lay off. You know, some of the ones that are in there for capital that I think of that could be reoccurring are like a patrol vehicle. We do replace one every year. We do have some parks equipment, you know, that you're replacing every year or five. You know, it depends on their replacement schedule. So some of them are recurring, but the majority of those costs are not recurring costs.

Okay. So we're not spending down the reserves on things that would be... That we continually spend down reserves on that's I guess that's my it's improved significantly.

Yes. Yes Yeah, it's just the capital items where you know it but operational supplies and Personnel services those are fully covered under this budget.

Okay, great. Thank you And then I do have a couple questions. I'm just confused about this this whole issue with the state and possibly limiting our ability to levy carryover mills in the future. My understanding is that they've tried to pass bills like this, but they've never made it out of committee or they've died somewhere along the way. Is that correct?

You know, I think the league's done a good job of trying to make sure that we retain that right to our carryover mills. But just like with taxable value, we were, this last session, you know, they started at 50%. You'd only get 50%. A lot of lobbying got that to 75%. My biggest concern is the county came out and said we're levying our carryover mills because of the uncertainty. I think other communities likely are as well, and my concern is once they see that, they're gonna eliminate what's remaining.

Okay, but they could go back if they wanted to and say, well, actually we're gonna re-index where you were and we're gonna re-index it to the beginning of fiscal year 26 when the county hadn't and we hadn't levied any extra mills, couldn't they?

Most of the tax laws are not retroactive because it would have impacts to property taxpayers. So typically the tax bills are forward-looking.

but we're talking about the Montana State Legislature in Helena, correct?

Correct, yes, but the Department of Revenue has a big job on their hands, so it would depend on the legislation, but I would see, they've done it for a voted levy, so our voted levy last year, we had to change from a 24 voted levy, the voters of Whitefish said, 24 mils for our fire department and the state did change that and said sure you can keep the 24 mils but you have to adjust to the prior year revenue collection and then you're based on taxable value or you can change to dollar value assessment and then go up with our calculation for 15, 10, 4, 20. So there's some stuff that's retroactive and they aren't even necessarily Guess in that specific legislation I felt that they weren't even letting the voters have a decision because they had already made that decision here locally, right?

So I mean they think I mean my concern is that if we do this and we you know We add these extra mills. We're adding five mills correct according to From what the original proposed budget was correct. We're adding an extra five mills to try to capture some of that money but the concern and there's been a lot of hand-wringing about this on the city council about what do we do about this? But it just seems that no matter what we do, they're gonna paint a bullseye around us anyway. And if we start to, if we do go back and levy these extra mills and we go increase it from five to 10 or even all the way to we have what 21 mills we could levy 21 point something roughly.

Yeah, well, I think with the five mills.

But it just seems to me that they would, I mean, does it seem, it just seems to me anyway, and then I'll ask you one more question and I'll be done, but it just seems to me that if we do that, that's going to draw their attention even more than us actually doing right by our city residents for years and years and not raising taxes. And this five mills is just, To me, it seems as if it's $7 a year. The last question I have, though, is that if they do pass a law that says we can't levy those carryover mills, Do those laws take effect immediately and then we can't do anything for our next budget year? Because, I mean, they're not going to meet until January of 2027. And then they only meet for four months. And in the meantime, we'll be preparing a new budget with the possibility of saying, oh, it looks like they tried to take away our mills. Now we should go in and levy them rather than.

Or could we do a budget amendment?

What are our options?

Yeah, so for next fiscal year, they can make their bills effective upon signing. They can be effective immediately. Typically, a bill is effective October 1, but for tax bills, they can make them immediately effective. So if you recall, the 2025 legislation that came out about the tax rates were for fiscal year 26, so they adopted them by May of 2025, and that was effective for our budget that fall, or summer, I guess for kind of summer, but yeah, they can do that. They can make it effective so that, because we don't pass our budgets till August, we don't get taxable value till August, they could do changes.

Okay, could we do a budget amendment and levy?

not on the tax levy side because we have to have those to the county by the 1st of September. So we couldn't go back and levy them for this fiscal year budget.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you, Steve. Rebecca?

Yep. Dana, could you just take a minute to explain how when the TIF expired, we then – normally taxes would go into the general fund but at the time the city manager advised the council to eliminate ten mills And so it's actually legally what we're capable of taxing, but he felt like we were in a financial situation at the time where we didn't need those 10 mils. But could you explain that history? Because I think it's kind of pertinent to right now.

Yeah, so in 2023, 2021, our TIF value, so with a tax increment financing district, the increment, the amount that grows from the base value until that sunsets, that increment, that growth, goes into a special fund at the city and it's to be invested in that district. Ours was a pretty large district and included downtown, included the schools where we provided funding for that. When that sun sets, the amount of value there goes back to all the taxing jurisdictions. So the county gets newly taxable, the school and the city got newly taxable value. And our newly taxable that year was $13 million. Just in comparison, this year's newly taxable value is 2.1 million. big new taxable value coming in. Had we levied the full amount of our mills just to recapture all of that newly taxable, it would not have provided a tax increase to anybody because it's simply that those properties in that district those mills just go back to our general fund. So we no longer have the TIF funds, but that year when we reduced mills by 10 mills, it did reduce the city's total revenue that can be invested in the city. tax increment there were some personnel services in there but it was fairly minor I think it was like four hundred thousand dollars a lot of those funds were used though to like redevelop downtown helping with the bike pathway in front of the fire brand helping with some of the projects in town as well so so we did provide a tax decrease that year actually and I was city manager at the time, but it was the former city manager that made that suggestion, and that's fine. I think at that time, we were in a different place and time with COVID and uncertainty in the market, and so I think it was a sound decision, but I do think when we look at our tax bill history for the city from 2019 to 2026, our average growth is 2.5%. We have not had significant increases. That doesn't mean that home values haven't changed. The values of the homes have gone up, so those values are up, but overall, it's an average of 2.5. For that million dollar home, for an example, it was a 2.5% average over those years, which was far less than the other jurisdictions like the county and the state and the schools, which were averaging closer to that six to 7%.

And the risk to not raising or reclaiming the mills or using the mills that are legally allowed for us to use to take care of the city is that we would have to limit growth or building things like a second fire hall or something, right? You'd have more constraint about managing big projects.

So yeah, so as I just mentioned earlier, with the five added mills, we're still spending down our reserves. Of that, the $918,000 for Depot Park townhomes, like that we already knew we were doing. That was COVID, well, state and local fiscal requirements. fiscal recovery funds, ARPA, I'll just say that. This is during the COVID era where we had a significant, about $2 million come in from the federal government. So we had already identified that spend down, but that still leaves about a million dollars of spend down for capital. And as I mentioned earlier, some of those projects are reoccurring projects. And so by levying the 10 mils, you would reduce that spend down of reserves. Excuse me, if you went from the five added to 10 added, you would spend down about $1.4 million. That would leave us with about 33.81% in reserves. And then... You know you could look at in the future years this year what you know it would still leave a spend on of capital for us about five hundred seven thousand dollars but in the future years you could use it for capital like our patrol vehicles or fire apparatus or parks equipment that does get replaced frequently. Or you could utilize those funds to supplement workforce needs as we grow, such as adding firefighters for that second station. You could add a few and go out for the public safety levy with a smaller dollar amount. You could look at adding the community risk reduction coordinator that was requested by the fire department that I did not include in the budget. and that was presented to you during the work session. We have a part-time IT position that could go to full-time and we have other department positions that have been requested or probably would have been requested if it wasn't for my direction to them, to department heads that keep your budgets flat as possible. like minimal increases. And that's been the statement to department heads for the past five years at least. And so what would we see in a perfect world? I don't know. They just have the direction from me to keep stuff low. So if you have those funds available, you've recaptured it, the cost would be for a million dollar home about $53 for the year, a 6.62% increase, which for that's a primary residence, which is pretty close to what would have happened with the five mills if the tax rates hadn't changed. If you remember, it was 6.45%. A second home would see a larger increase at $711, but again, the majority of that is the state tax rate changes too. So because it would have been $100 with a 10 mil increase for the for the year or twelve point five five percent increase So I hope I answered your question. I kind of went off on a spiel.

Yeah, I just I just wanted to have Some history and then also some rationale going forward. Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca additional questions for our city manager. I Giuseppe, anything?

Yes. Yes, sure. I was giving priority to the people in the flesh. Dana, we've been working a lot on this budget. I'd like for you to help me for the public record to check a couple of numbers, and then I have a couple of questions. Am I correct that if I go through the budget, this year we're looking at a property tax revenue total increase of 31 and a bit percent?

That is correct under the budget that is in the packet. Yes, correct.

And is it correct that we have additional property tax revenue of around 1.750 million?

So yes, the resort tax, well, the resort tax, are you talking about resort tax relief?

No, property tax revenue.

Oh, yes. Yes, correct. That's 1.743 additional.

Now, despite what we think about what the state is doing to us, is it correct that we had a certified taxable value increase of around 16.5%? And is it correct that because of those bills passed in Helena, we are quote-unquote saving around five meals that we would have to charge to what I call the residents versus the non-residents?

Could you ask that again? I wasn't quite following on that one.

Because of the different tax rates, am I correct that we moved or the state moved around five meals worth of value from the primary owners to the non-primary owners.

I see what you're saying. Yes. Yes. Based on the primary residents being a $7.76 increase versus the 615. Yes. Yes, that's correct. They shifted it to second homeowners.

Perfect. Now let's look at what the property, the resort tax is doing. The gross city levy that we're looking at right now, it's around 80 and a bit mils, correct?

So the total number of mils levied is 60.12 mils.

Now there are 20 that are rebated from the resort tax. Am I correct?

Correct. Yes. Without resort tax, it would be, yes, it'd be 80.2.

Perfect. Thank you. And the revenue that comes from those five meals that we're debating, that we pretty much all are accepting to be in the budget, it's around $606,000, right? Correct. Yes, correct. Perfect. I'm almost done. Now I have a couple of questions and then I'm done. I read that the beginning fund balances came in around $5 million higher than what we expected.

No, well, that might have been like the preliminary projections, but the beginning fund balance for our property tax supportive funds is 8.17 million. We anticipated ending fiscal year 26 with... 6.15 million. So we did have additional beginning fund balance over what was projected. That was Let me see, I gotta see what I'm looking at here. That was mostly when you look at the $2 million, you look at what was spent on Depot Park Townhomes, what we're carrying over, that's about a million of that dollar difference, because we're gonna anticipate spending that down again this year, but we just didn't utilize all the funds in fiscal year 26. And then there were some other ones, department savings, but also, We had additional revenue over what we had projected in some of the categories, and then some lower than expected as well. So yeah, it's a net of ending the year, fiscal year 26, with 8.17, but we had projected the 6.15 again. Take a million off of that, because that was the Depot Park townhomes.

So thank you. So I was incorrect reading five million. So if it was two million difference, meaning we started, we will start the year with two million, quote unquote, more than we thought we were going to have previously. And I understand one million comes and goes. Two million is around three and a half mils. Am I correct or am I saying it wrong?

million dollars is closer to like seven, maybe it's 127 or 821,000 times or million divided by 121,000.

Right, right. So what I was going was is that we are starting with around eight meals for 1 million, or 16 meals for 2 million, ahead of the curve than we thought before.

Correct, and I talk about Depot Park town homes. There are a couple other projects that have carried forward that we did not spend last year that was budgeted to be spent and will be carried forward. $150,000 for Whitefish Yards to Sky Park Bridge Trail. You have the River Bend Path that's smaller, about $25,000. So there have been some carryover projects that weren't completed in fiscal year 26 but are carried forward. So those costs just carry forward as well.

okay thank you very much thank you mayor for letting me speak so long with dana thank you giuseppe further questions for our city manager andy dana if you could just describe for us a little bit because you are the gatekeeper of the budget and everything filters up to you and then you provide that filter for what ultimately ends up in either on our screen or in our book that we get and I know that a lot of things get called out in that process, and I just wondered if you could tell us a few of the things that we are not funding in this budget that were department requests.

Yeah, so that's a good question. So as I mentioned, the one that stands out from a workforce first, we'll go into that, the community risk reduction specialist, I see a very important value in that position. We're wrapping up our CWPP. That's gonna take a huge implementation effort that our current fire department staff just do not have the capacity to do. And so when I see that project come forward, I think it's a very important position. That said, budget's tight. I'm not asking the council for another position. I prioritize, and I've had the mechanics been asked for for probably three years, and I'm putting the department heads at notice, like, yeah, you can request something, but it's not necessarily getting filled. So I'm sure there are other positions that might be necessary or will be coming up in the future. So from a workforce perspective, there's that. From capital perspective, the police department needs another patrol vehicle. We're putting one in the budget. They actually need two. Our police vehicles are running all day, every day, and so they rack up a lot of miles. And then you look at, I'm trying to think of other ones off the top of my head. Just because of the direction that I've provided them, to minimize their budget increases, I think I haven't even seen what is out there that they could actually utilize. Parks and Rec, we need to replace the tree grates downtown. Whose responsibility is that? Where are we gonna find the funding for that? That's one that has just come up. And benches and downtown garbage cans come out of our general fund. Those things are not in this budget that are projects that we see value for the community. Finishing up that bear resistant garbage containers from basically I think it's Second South. on Central Avenue to again inform the public that we live with bears. It's really important to have those garbage containers. Those are just all these different projects that we've just cut because they might be We can wait a little longer for a police vehicle till next year, but we're gonna have another one in next year's budget is realistically what it's gonna happen. And then, you know, the garbage cans just, they are what they are. So those are some of the projects, but again, I think there's more out there. You also can look at our capital improvement plan. Quite honestly, if you look at the capital improvement plan for our police, fire, and parks, there are significant capital projects that have been pushed out in years simply due to funding.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF.

THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.

WE DID ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON RESOLUTION 26-24 WHICH IS OUR FY27 BUDGET TAX LEVY AND ASSESSMENTS WHICH INCLUDES RESOLUTION 26-24 I BELIEVE THROUGH RESOLUTION 26-33. Any public comment this evening? Mike.

Good evening. Michael Hein, 612 Luffer, Whitefish. I don't have a strong feeling about the coming debate between 5 and 10 mils and what's going to happen. But I would say that The reserves that the city is holding are quite high, even by standards of small cities. Most small cities have a higher reserve recommended percentage because borrowing costs are higher. It's more prone to wildfire risk. We have catastrophic problems. But the big one is usually revenue variance. and whitefish is a resort community doesn't really have a lot as much revenue variance at least in one year uh... than other towns so one of the three pillars of needing more reserves for small cities might not apply to us just something to consider when we're talking about having thirty percent or thirty five percent reserves how much we need is probably as important as what projects are being funded this year versus next year Dana makes a good point about looking at the capital improvement plan and trying to look at a timeline beyond fiscal year twenty seven and how what is going to look like in twenty seven or twenty eight obviously you have the risk management of what the state's going to do with the possibly banning carryover mills. That failed last legislative session pretty quickly, so it may not be an imminent risk. It needs to be taken into account. Again, I don't have a, I'm not voting, so you're voting. But that's all I got. Thanks.

Thank you, Michael.

Ed.

Good evening, Ed Leaser, 1355 Lyon Mountain Drive. I picked up on something Dana said about hiring somebody to execute the CWPP. And having gone over that thoroughly, How we implement that is going to require somebody, somebody that we don't have right now. This is the time of the year when we think about Spokane and all those other places that are being affected by wildfire. We are vulnerable. I'm telling you as a fire behavior analyst who spent a good portion of my career, that CWPP has got it right. And we need somebody to execute that. We don't have that right now, and we're just hanging out. So I would strongly encourage the council to consider a position that takes charge of that. Thank you.

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

For those of you who are online, if you would like to speak towards the FY27 budget, please raise your hand. I think we're good.

Thank you, Michelle. I would turn it back to the council, close the public hearing, and entertain a motion, please.

Steve. Make a motion to approve approve resolutions 26-24 through 26-33. Is that an okay motion to make? Those are the resolution accepting and approving the municipal budget for the city of Whitefish for the 2027 fiscal year.

Thank you, Steve. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Davis. Further discussion? Steve.

Yeah, I'll just speak to my motion first. I know there's been a lot of disagreement over what we should do with the carryover mills. And I just want to bring up a couple points that I think are relevant. Number one, in the matter of about a week and a half, we went from cutting things from the budget to realizing we have a surplus. to then talking about raising taxes on the order of $90 a year from where we were with our preliminary budget, which is what we thought we were going to have to cut a couple things from, to when we got our tax valuation. Talking about the 10 mil raise. So I think that the 5 mil raise is a compromise. It's a middle ground. It keeps taxes flat. If we look at what's going on in this country, you know, everything is up. Groceries are up 6%. Healthcare, depending on where you work, is up to 10%. And just in the city of Whitefish, I think Dana said it's up 5%. Gas is up 10%, anywhere from 6% to 10%. Utilities are up 20%. We have mandatory increases in our trash and water, 3%, 3.5%. and we have an opportunity to keep taxes level with the current budget as it's presented and i think that uh... i think that is is a fair uh... i think that's fair to the people of of whitefish on a bigger picture because i because i try to see things from ten thousand thirty thousand feet by increasing taxes more were already increasing them from where we were from our with our preliminary budget which would have been a tax tax decrease again By increasing taxes, we are saying to the people of Whitefish that the failures of the people in Helena to take care of all the other things that are not your property taxes, the failure of the people at the national level, including our representatives in Washington, D.C., to keep your cost of living low We're coming at this from the perspective of, okay, we're going to put it on you as local residents on your property taxes because we've done a terrible job with everything else. you know if we didn't if we weren't talking about you know that the rising cost of health care groceries gasoline utilities all of those things it would be a much more palatable situation to say okay yeah we need to do this now there are there are some possibly unfunded things from our that that come up uh... during the budget discussions dana has uh... my big question is okay if those are real priorities Why aren't they in the budget in the first place? Why haven't we been talking about this from the beginning? So I think ultimately this, the five mil increase is a middle ground that keeps taxes, your property taxes from the city flat for this year and we'll have to wait and see what Helena does next year. And I think we will be able to accommodate that because people across the state seem that they're able to manage it. So that's what I had to say about my motion.

Thank you Steve. Further discussion Rebecca.

Yeah just a point of clarification if I wanted to vote for the 10 mil increase do we just vote no on this motion and then come back?

There's a motion on the table for the 5 percent mil carryover retention and if that motion fails then I would reconsider a second motion for at your discretion.

And I would like to speak to Steve's concern about the cost to taxpayers. I think it's actually $53 per year for a million dollar home, isn't it, Dana? For the 10 mills, yes. For 10 mills versus $7?

But from the preliminary budget. Rebecca has the seat.

But yeah he was referencing the preliminary budget which was higher at just the preliminary budget without added mills. And that was because we didn't have our taxable value.

And and I do agree that it's a cumulative we are living in very very expensive times. But I feel like it's imperative that we deal with our fire risk. And if this is one way to possibly fund the firefighters that we need and we can actually build a second fire station in two to three years and get, like what Ed said, an expert to manage our fire risk, I think it's worth it to increase the taxes in a year where our taxable value came back higher than we expected.

Thanks, Rebecca. Further comments? Ben.

So I've been, first of all, I would start by thanking staff. I know this budget is a tremendous amount of work. There's a million decisions that go into this, and I know this is a difficult budget year, but I think that The revenues, the reserves, the finances of the city are very strong and I think that that is largely, not largely, it is due to careful fiscal management over a very long period of time and I greatly appreciate all the efforts that go into that and I want to start with that first. I would make a comment on the debate that we've had over the last couple weeks regarding the concept of carryover mills. I've been thinking about this pretty hard and I guess for me it has some parallels to when a couple months ago we voted on ambulance fees. And in the sense that there's two sides of the, a carryover mill, there's two sides of an argument. One is a principle argument which says that a carryover mill, when we come in at the end of a budget and add a carryover mill or add a mill in at the end, it basically says we're raising tax revenue for citizens that we don't have an identified need for. And I think that's true, and I have a very hard time with that, personally. But the other side of the argument, which is also very good, is the fact that we live in the world we live in, and we're creatures of the state, and we have a game to play with our budgeting and the state. And the state may or may not remove carryover mills, which might reduce our taxing authority going forward. So there's an argument to be made that we should tax more now to be able to have revenues in the future. Now what is before us is the five mil additional version of it, and I would point out that in my brain, quite honestly, I'm a very principled person. I sort of came into this discussion feeling like we should approve without the additional mils. As on general principle, I just have a very hard time with it, but I do recognize the situation we're in. The version that is here feels like a compromise to me. We have five additional mills every year. I would point out that that does raise enough funds to pay for basically everything Dana just brought up, including the wildfire staff member, and then some. And I think I would personally have a very hard time, very hard time approving a budget with even more mills than that. And so I think that I'm going to support what's here. I don't think these decisions are make or break for the city in any, the magnitude of them in any way, shape or form. I totally understand both sides of this argument, but I think for me, the principle of it is as far as I can go. And so I'm going to support the current motion and I'll be happy with however we end up here. So thanks.

Thank you, Ben.

Andy.

Well, I think you guys all know what I'm going to say. I find 10 mils quite frankly a compromised position knowing that we've got 21.7 laying on the table right now There's a part of me that says we should grab all 21, but I realize that's not realistic As far as identified needs, I think we have many of them We had 208 hours in this community since the first of the year when we had no emergency services coverage 208 hours that's eight days basically and at five carryover mills pickup we're not hiring another firefighter for that we know that even at a minimum we're looking at nine firefighters to hire to staff a second station which we have three plans before us that tell us that that needs to happen we've had that for a long time and i just know what it's like in this community and having been through budgets when we've had slowdowns which you guys haven't you've not seen that budget and those budgets gets difficult rebecca has yeah and those and those budgets are very very difficult because suddenly we're not generating subdivision application fees and building permit application fees and we still have a planning department with people that need to get a paycheck and They're losing money every month and that's coming out of the general fund That's where those dollars come from and when we can build reserves I think that's a really really good thing for us to do the guard of carryover mills I agree with Steve's argument in part that we kind of don't know what the state's gonna do and part of raising is We're dealing with county government and federal government and state government that can't find themselves in a brightly lit room with a flashlight a lot of times when it comes to fiscal matters and But I can't justify making a statement by only raising 5 mils because they're inept. I have to look at what makes it good for this community. I have to know that I'm looking forward and I'm seeing what our capital needs are going to be, and they're going to be there. And one of the things I also look at is we've had, well, let's take the 10 mils, for example. Since 2022, over a six-year period of time, even going up 10 mills this time, the total increase on a home in the $1 million category in this community has been $114. That's with levying additional 10 mills in this budget. That's not very much money. And why is that? Because we've kept taxes flat. We've kept taxes flat. We've kept taxes flat. We've kept taxes flat. And what that does in the word defer is essentially kick the can down the road. And all we're doing is we're making future councils and we're making future department heads and future city's manager. Their job much more difficult in the future by not having a secured source of revenue. And I don't feel that having to go out for voted levies to run this city is ever going to serve the members of this community in any way, shape, or form. I think that's wrought with trouble. I think it's something that maybe works once, maybe doesn't work again. What if suddenly we don't pass our fire department levy? and half of our firefighters go away and we've got an empty station north of the viaduct that didn't serve our community very well in my opinion i guess i mean and i understand the keeping flat and i voted for that for the last five budgets in a row i mean i've been with everybody on that but the other thing i've learned over all the times i've been through budgets is When you have an opportunity to increase revenues, build reserves, and it has minimal impact on the taxpayers, that's the best times to do it. We have been very, very good fiscal stewards when times are tough to take as much out of the budget as we can and make things as palatable and as less painful as we possibly can for people. So I just can't support the five mills. And I think, like I say, I find 10 to be a compromise.

Thank you, Andy. Further comments? There is a motion on the table to- May I? Giuseppe, I'm sorry.

That's okay. I was waiting for Councillor Sweeney to say his piece, but that's okay. First of all, I want to thank Dana, Lainey, and all of the staff for the tremendous amount of work that went into producing this budget. So I resonate with what Councillor Davis has said to that point. Producing not only a budget, but also to keep the city financially healthy along the years. For the record, I'm comfortable supporting the five mil compromise of this budget. I still have reservations about collecting additional taxes today, primarily out of concern that future legislation might restrict the city's flexibility. For that reason, I will not support if there is a new motion later, I will not support the 10 meals or anything more than 5 meals. That's a compromise that I can support within this council. Finally, I believe that taxing authority is not really a use it or lose it coupon. If we don't need the money today, we should not collect it from the taxpayers today. Thank you.

Thank you, Giuseppe. Further comments from the council? There's a motion again on the table, a motion by Councillor Quinelle, seconded by Councillor Davis to adopt the budget. as presented in addition to resolutions 25-33, which are our assessments and tax levies. All those in favor, please raise your hand. All those opposed, like sign. And we have Councilor Quinell, Caltabiano, and Davis voting in favor. Councilors Sweeney, Fury, and Norton voting in opposition. And I'm gonna go ahead and vote against the motion. With that said, I would entertain a second motion. Andy.

Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve the fiscal year 27 budget. And we would do that adopting alternative number three as presented to us a week ago this past Thursday. And that includes capturing 10 of our carryover mills.

Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by Councillor Norton. Further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, like, sign. And I will vote in favor of the motion, and that motion does pass on a majority vote of the city council. We're going to go ahead and take a five-minute break, and we'll reconvene at about, I can't see the clock, but about 8.30, I think. So thanks, everyone. Do you need glasses? I've got them. I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting back to order if folks don't mind taking their seats. And Giuseppe, you're still with us. Thank you. We'll move on to consideration to adopt the water master plan and wastewater master plan. We'll start with resolution 26-34. And Craig, if you don't mind, can I take one? staff report and public hearing on both resolutions? That would be excellent. Okay. In fact, I hear.

I'm sorry, Craig? I was gonna say I wrote it as one staff report.

Okay, great. With individual. So we have one staff report enclosed in the packet, which will be for Resolution 26-34, which I just stated, as well as adopting the 2026 City of Whitefish Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plan. And I'll turn it over to our Public Works Director, Craig Workman. Thanks, Craig.

Thank you, and good evening I'll also note that Lizzie's here our deputy public works director and Alan who's introduced himself already, so if there's questions I can't answer or comments that they would like to address I just Ask that they have the floor as possible So I did do a staff report for both resolutions. I'm going to minimize this because you have quite a few pages of actual plan in your packet, and I can see a number of public that likely want to comment. So I'll give you the Cliff Notes version of my staff report. The city is committed to providing the people of Whitefish with safe, dependable, and affordable water and sewer services now and into the future. To ensure that commitment is met and to provide relevant information for the city's recently adopted growth policy, the Public Works Department has completed the 2026 Water Master Plan and the 2026 Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plan. The Water Master Plan is intended to serve as the city's strategic blueprint for managing its public water system over the next 20 years. It's broken into several sections with recommendations. Water supply and treatment is the first. There are four major recommendations, including the increased usage of Whitefish Lake water for our supply. SCADA controlled actuated valve installation to manage consumption from Haskell Creek. continued investigation into potential groundwater or other water supply sources that are less affected by climate factors, and continuing to take steps to reduce water usage through conservation. In the water storage section, there are five individual recommendations, including the completion of the South Whitefish Water Capacity Project, which I will say is well underway with the construction of the new million gallon tank and the water main in 18th Street. Investigation of potential leakage from the raw water reservoir at the water plant. Investigating valve closures throughout the transmission mains. electrical and instrument control improvements at the upper and lower grouse tanks and the mountain booster stations and tanks to allow remote monitoring and control. There's also a system on distribution system analysis, which includes the reconstruction of the Suncrest Booster Station, investigation of, wait a second. Sorry, I think I duplicated some of that. So the last section was water storage and distribution analysis, which also includes the continuation of our annual pipe replacement program. The wastewater and stormwater master plan has a detailed overview of the wastewater system As well as the wastewater treatment plant. I'm not going to go into all of those recommendations, but there are seven recommendations for the wastewater treatment plant three recommendations on the wastewater collection system And for lift station capital improvement projects and finally the stormwater system plan is part of that wastewater plan, which includes two key projects and two additional recommendations. I'm happy to go into more detail on any of that, but ultimately it is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that we hold a public hearing to consider the two resolutions you just mentioned, which I believe were 26, 34, and 35.

Thank you, Craig. Any questions for our Public Works Director or Deputy Director or Alan Wendt, who is here from AE2S? Rebecca.

Yeah, Craig, I'm just going through the sheet that you left us. about the public comments that we got. And could you just explain, I guess I'm a little confused about the, is it called an actuator valve and that would be placed at the intake versus telemetry because people that would like us to monitor the discharge from Second and Third Creek would prefer telemetry so it's more accurate, but how far away would the telemetry placement be from where these actuator valves are placed?

So the remote telemetry project that's recommended through the public comment that we received would be at the intakes themselves. So up in the watershed at second and third creeks. The actuated valve that we are proposing and is a recommendation from the master plan would be at the plant itself, essentially at the hydro plant, just at the influent to the raw water reservoir. So it would still use instrument and controls to run that actuated valve based on the level in the raw water pond, but it wouldn't require the power source, the remote telemetry, and the valving up at the intakes themselves.

How how far away is that telemetry site from where the reservoir is?

Feet I don't know it's it's over a mile.

Oh it's over a mile. OK. And then the other thing that they said is that there's a presumption that we're wasting at least 30 percent of the water. But do we at some point need to start accumulating that data to see how much we are actually spilling and letting go.

We do have that data. That 30% is based on an annual average, and so we spill a considerable amount of water during the higher precipitation and higher runoff times of the year. We don't spill much, if any, water from the reservoir during these low flow times.

Okay, and then you're recommending that the 2026 water master plan... that we actually evaluate how the reservoir is leaking. But you don't have any plans for that currently, correct?

We don't have... We have money for it in the fiscal 27 budget, but we don't have anybody lined up to do the actual tracer test, correct.

All right. And... The possibility of the wells having ground groundwater support around the reservoir is that the idea is that you would use groundwater to supplement the reservoir.

I guess I'd rather that come up in public comment. So the individual making that request could could explain that.

OK. And then I guess this is just a general question that I don't know is when there's a lot in there about our water rights and the golf course's water rights. But what I don't know is if we use up all the water, even if we have the water rights to do that, causing damage downstream. where there are actually dry creek beds that harm someone else's property, are we liable in some way?

I don't know that I can answer that. I mean, we have a right to take the water from the state of Montana. I don't know that the water rights speak specifically towards downgrade degradation or downstream degradation.

Does our attorney have any comment on that? I don't. OK. All right. Thank you. That's all for now.

We're we're a junior water right holder. The former Vorman Ranch is the senior water right holder for that basin. So unless there's a call that's made by the senior water right user which I believe is Johnny Shockey now. No. In answer to your question.

So John are you Mayor Montfield are you saying that whoever has a senior right unless they create an issue and require us to change our water consumption that nothing is legally we're not liable in any way.

That's correct because I think Public Works has done an adequate job of monitoring the inflow rates to demonstrate that we're meeting our water right permit and our claims. on both 2nd and 3rd Creek. So unless that were to be exceeded, there is no valid claim or complaint to be made. Sure. Additional questions for Craig? Not seeing any. We did advertise for a public hearing on what will be both resolutions 26-34 as well as 35. Any public comment this evening, and I will limit public comment this evening to three minutes in the spirit of running an efficient meeting. We've had a long week here as councilors, so please respect the three minute rule. John.

I'll try my best to keep it under three minutes. First of all, I'm here on behalf of the Haskell Basin Watershed Council. You know that we are supporters of the radio telemetry system, and we believe that's something that the city should be pursuing. I've got hearing aids on tonight. They were not working, so I missed an awful lot of what Craig said. So I may say something that is... It has already been corrected and if so I apologize for that. When I was last involved a few weeks ago at a budget meeting there was discussion about the cost of a telemetry system and I think the council decided they didn't have good solid information on that. And I believe the decision was to leave $100,000 in the water budget for the purpose of kind of fleshing out what it was truly going to cost, the full cost of a telemetry system. Does that seem correct to you folks?

Craig? There was money, council directed us to put money in the fiscal 27 budget to further analyze the telemetry system, $50,000.

And it is in there.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And I noticed it wasn't in the budget, so that's great. Right now the master plan analyzes whether or not a telemetry system would be appropriate and then I believe decides no it's not going to be appropriate. So right now I think the master plan says no to that and it sounds like if you budgeted potentially $100,000 to investigate further, it would be good to rewrite that portion of the report simply to show that the city hasn't closed the door on the telemetry system that it's going to be investigated over the next fiscal year. But that would take a change to the actual language of the master plan. Considering the number of minutes, I'll race through a few things. I had wanted to say something about the community's dedication to clean water and healthy water systems and productive lakes and rivers and streams. When I moved to town, I learned right away that this community really cared about water quality. Having lived here now 32 years, I've heard it over and over and over that the community really cares. I worked with the city for 15 years and attended 15 years' worth of council meetings, and I heard it there from council members and mayors and audience and staff. And so I want to believe that. And the new community plan that you adopted just recently It says basically that. It says, this is at the intro, we will demonstrate environmental stewardship and maintain and improve our natural resources. Whitefish is defined by its natural environment. It had a water quality goal of number two, and that was maintain and improve water quality of the whitefish area's lakes, rivers, groundwater, and streams. During the visioning process, the community overwhelmingly responded. The top three most important features to protect were the Whitefish River, Whitefish Lake, and overall water quality. I guess that to me is the most important thing for me to say tonight. I'm hoping that sentiment is still alive and well. It's obvious, and I think the evidence is obvious, that Second Creek and Third Creek are being dewatered a lot, sometimes for months at a time. That's just not consistent with a community and a city council or a city entity that believes strongly in maintaining water quality. You've got to have water to have water quality, and if there's no water in those creeks, we can't even talk about water quality. So I'm hoping that that sentiment remains and that you will continue to look long and hard and we will present to you long and hard further facts about why we really need the telemetry system and then we need to make sure that Second and Third Creek receive adequate water. So I think my three minutes were long passed up. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Appreciate it. Who's next? Samantha.

Good evening honorable mayor and council members. My name is Samantha Tappenbeck I'm the resource conservationist for Flathead Conservation District. Flathead Conservation District has been the administrative sponsor of the Haskell Basin Watershed Council since it was formed in 2000. Flathead CD submitted a letter of support of the Haskell Basin Watershed Council's report summarizing their concerns and recommendations to the city. I believe you all have that letter with their report. I'm here today just to reiterate that support and urge you to consider this opportunity to advance the stewardship of Haskell Basin Watershed through proactive management of the municipal water system. We ask that the council consider adopting the following management priorities into this 20 year water master plan to work towards maximizing efficiency and conserving water use and existing infrastructure of the municipal water system to minimize impacts to the creek. and a commitment to being responsive to uncertain climate conditions by building in resiliency to the existing infrastructure. Flathead Conservation District supports the Haskell Basin Watershed Council's position that greater efficiency and more responsive management of the resource could be accomplished with installation of a remote radio telemetry system for real-time monitoring of conditions and adjustments at the diversions on 2nd and 3rd creeks. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I'll make myself available for questions if helpful.

Thanks Samantha. Appreciate you coming tonight. Mike.

Mayor, City Council, Mike Kopel, Director of the Whitefish Lake Institute. We submitted written comments for your review. I just want to touch upon two main points tonight. Number one is that this is a really good engineering report. In fact, your engineering team of Craig, Lizzie, Allen are awesome for this community, and we value that. The problem is this is an engineering report, whereas this is a joint engineering and natural resource management scenario. So we can't just look at the engineering fixes without addressing the natural resource concerns. So you pull out a thread in the engineering realm and you're going to start to unravel other things. And I think you heard that through some of the written comment. So for me, this is a plan for the next 20 years, right? And so I fall back on what's the worst case scenario? So the most important service that we provide to residents is municipal drinking water, right? So does this plan adequately address the what ifs, right? The plausible what ifs. And so I itemized in my response to you a couple of them. Number one is a catastrophic fire up Second and Third Creek, right, which is reasonable, feasible in my mind, especially hearing Ed, and we all know what happened in Spokane this year. And when that happens, we can get hydrophobic soils, we can get increased water yield, sediment delivery, basically taking those intake diversion structures offline. Post that, there might be a taste and odor issue making the water unpalatable for municipal consumption. The other thing is, we're doing our darndest to keep zebra and quagga mussels out of Whitefish Lake, a very aggressive watercraft inspection program, thanks to you all and Maria and Carla for doing a great job on the ground. But there's no guarantees, right? So what happens then? So we could get zebra mussels colonizing the water intake pipe partially or totally occluding that pipe. Their microscopic life form can get sucked up to the water treatment plant for which they could then colonize infrastructure there. So I guess what I'm saying is this plan falls short in terms of the long-term game, right? So we need to consider certain mitigation strategies because if something happens between now and within the next 20 years, what management options will you have to use as tools to continue providing service to the residents of Whitefish? So, you know, there's a couple of things I suggested, you know, Craig alluded to the groundwater wells. So I think that was me, right? So I've advocated for potential deep groundwater wells near the water intake diversion structures, right? So that water can be incorporated and blended upstream, right, of the hydro plants so there'd be some cost recovery in using that water. Number one, there's known chemistry. There are some chemistry concerns with hardness and other things and concerns with lead dissolution in our infrastructure. Well, the next 20 years, we should also be working very hard to get rid of that lead infrastructure, right? So I guess the moral of the story is if deep groundwater wells uphill of the water treatment plant aren't feasible from an engineering perspective, show me what third water source is feasible for the city. And we need to itemize that now and work towards it with a tangible plan rather than have a 20-year plan and then be here in 20 years with not attaining that goal. It's a great engineering plan. Again, great people worked on this. I'm just saying let's pause. Let's go back to the table. And again, this is a combination engineering and natural resource issue. So let's address it that way. So thank you.

Thank you, Mike. Additional public comments. Deputy. Always.

Honorable Mayor and Council, Richard Dildner, 104 5th Street, Whitefish, Montana.

Let me begin by saying, Samantha, I really appreciate your comments.

I think you hit the nail on the head, as it were. A couple of things. One is we have the technology. We have, it sounded like in the budget, the money to put an impermeable mat in the reservoir and get rid of or eliminate that leakage in our reservoir. And so if there's money, we should spend it on that and get that job done. Two, remote telemetry is a proven technology. We've been discussing it with regards to Haskell Basin for quite some time and I think now is the time to initiate that program. The third point is Do we have the right, I don't know how else to phrase it, to dewater streams and in essence destroy the riparian habitat, including the cutthroat trout that might live in it? And I think that it is important that we keep stream flow in second and third creeks and a telemetry system would go a long ways towards getting that done. Number four, as I said, we've been talking about this for a long, long time. I think it's time now, 15 years, and now is the time to stop talking and start acting. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard. Ed. If you don't mind, Alan, after Ed. Yeah.

Ed Leaser, 1355 Lyon Mountain Drive. I don't speak here very often, and to do it twice in one night is unprecedented, but this is an issue that I feel very strongly about, and I think I'd like to basically reiterate some of what's been said already, and I think I would take Richard's comment at the end very seriously. Do we have the right to alter an ecosystem. I appreciate the comments and the hearing that you had on the budget, and it makes me appreciate the challenge that you have trying to fiscally manage this very important resource for the good of the public. There's a cost to living here, and I strongly believe that we have to pay the price. And if it costs us more to take care of our ecosystem, our aquatic resource, that's got to be our highest priority. And it's a cost of living here. So again, I want to reiterate what's been said. I support the concept of the telemetry system. I hope you'll seriously consider that in the review of the master plan. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ed. Alan.

thanks again for letting me speak for you um i just want to touch a few bases here um i am the design engineer for this this report and we work very closely with the city in a kind of a tight box but i want to talk about the water master plan itself we talk about 20-year planning horizon those elements are not set in stone FOR 20 YEARS. EVERY YEAR THE CITY WILL COME BACK AND THEY'LL LOOK AT THE CIP'S AND DECIDE IS THIS APPROPRIATE THIS YEAR AND THEY MIGHT MOVE UP AND DOWN IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OR IF SOMETHING COMES UP THEY MAY ADD ONE OR THEY COULD COME ALONG AND THEY COULD SAY WE NEED TO DO AN UPDATE TO THIS PLAN IN TWO YEARS AND FOUR YEARS. USUALLY YOU SEE YOUR MUNICIPALITIES UPDATE THEM EVERY FIVE YEARS. SO IT'S NOT SET IN STONE IT'S ACTUALLY A LIVING DOCUMENT. WE TYPICALLY CALL THEM DRAFT BECAUSE THEY'RE NEVER FINALIZED. That said, moving on, I think people need to understand the cost of using less Haskell Creek water. You're going to lose revenue from the hydro plant. If you've got to pump it back up the hill you've got to pay those charges. The lake water, while very good quality, is not pristine quality like Haskell. You're going to have to treat harder, use more chemicals. The water's warmer, the reactions happen slower, require more chemicals yet. You're going to have more backwash. A lot of costs associated with those and I don't think people realize what that's going to be. And I would love for there to be all the water in Haskell Creek forever. but I think the city's going to have some difficult choices and it unfortunately is going to come down to an economic analysis. Do you have the economic fortitude to quit using Haskell Creek water or use less Haskell Creek water? The initial numbers I'm looking at aren't very promising for the city. It's going to be a tough pill to swallow. A few other things to talk about here. Wells are a little bit risky. There's no guarantee that you're going to get any kind of a yield out of them if you want. You can ask Big Mountain Water that. They've drilled a couple of dry holes in the last 10 years. But if you could, that's an excellent source and you've got it above the water treatment plant so hopefully you're not pumping far. There are water chemistry issues whether you use it for potable water and you'd have to add on or build a separate treatment plant before you blend it with your existing surface water. or potentially you could use it to augment Haskell Creek itself. That has some inherent advantages and disadvantages. You got a water chemistry issue again, but it is cold water and it could help offset the warming of the creek itself. uh... i do want to acknowledge the the fantastic work haskell basin commission has done the conservation district has done through the years with haskell creek uh... when i was a kid it was uh... a cow pond from one end to the other through bohrmans they've done an outstanding job of revegetating reforesting uh... so this is this is a tough decision um i've been tasked looking at only from an engineering standpoint but here we are this is where the sausage gets made so thank you thank you alan appreciate you attending this evening further public comments michelle anyone online

For those of you who are online, if you'd like to speak towards either the water master plan or the wastewater and storm water master plan, please raise your hand. We're good.

Go ahead and close the public hearing and I'll start with comments from the council. I'll start with Giuseppe since he is joining us remotely. Any comments, Giuseppe?

Mayor, I do not have a comment, but I know that we asked questions ahead of time to the staff. Can I ask a question to Craig after listening to the public comments?

Of course.

All right, Craig, I don't want to go into the weeds. All I want to understand high level is, and I use terms that I heard or read in your packet. On one hand, your plan, which is a plan, and I agree with the people who say it's not cast in marble and it's just a high level plan and then different decisions will be made at different stages. The actuator valve at the hydro plant. Regulates how much total water reaches the plant, but it doesn't tell us. How much water remains in 2nd and 3rd creek. Or allow us to remotely adjust those individual diversions. Where on the other side, this telemetry proposal. Would do that. Am I correct? And what is it that makes your approach comfortable for yourself and the staff in the city?

Yeah, I think you've explained it correctly, Giuseppe. The intent with the actuated valve at the water plant would be to slow down the water coming from Second and Third Creeks and back it up into First Creek. So water would still be diverted at Second and Third Creeks, but it would remain in the main stem of Haskell Creek by backing it up into First Creek. I will say that over the past several years, we have continued to allow water to overflow that second and third creek. Even though you go up there and you look at those creeks and they may look dry, that water is going underground somewhere after the diversions. We are spilling water and so we're not taking 100% of the water from second and third creek. But the intent of the actuated valve would essentially accomplish the same goal as the remote telemetry and the gate valves at 2nd and 3rd Creek. It's just that it would back up the water into 1st Creek and then meet up with the main stem of Haskell. shortly thereafter. I will say, Rebecca, in answer to your question earlier, I did just a quick GIS measurement. The intake for Third Creek is just over two miles from the water plant. It would likely, the signal would likely have to take a slightly different route, so I would estimate between two and three miles of distance in that remote telemetry.

Thank you, Craig. So are you saying that the telemetry solution would address the issue, so to speak, at its head versus at the feet? I'm paraphrasing. But there are technical challenges and costs that I don't know they're quantified because when you prepared the report, you were not comparing two solutions that would make it not desirable versus what we are proposing?

Yeah, I guess so. I don't know if it's necessarily a head versus feet. I mean, we were essentially keeping the water that we're not using, you know, to prevent it from spilling over at the raw water reservoir at the plant in Haskell Creek. It's just that it wouldn't all come out of Second and Third Creek, so it would go back to First Creek.

OKAY. AND THE OTHER SOLUTION, THE REMOTE SOLUTION WILL CHANGE THAT AS A STRUCTURAL CHANGE, CORRECT? SO WE'RE MAKING A CHOICE OF WHERE TO DIVERT OR KEEP THE WATER. IT'S NOT JUST A TECHNOLOGICAL CHOICE. AM I UNDERSTANDING?

YEAH. THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT, YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANKS, GIOCEPPI. WE'LL START WITH BEN AND THEN REBECCA.

I do have also one or two questions, if I could. And sorry if I'm a bit of a layman on this topic, but make sure my understanding is correct. We have three creeks, one, two, and three. They all join together into the main stem, whatever we would call that, Haskell Creek. Thank you. And then, so when we talk about dewatering, but the First Creek we don't use. So there's always water coming through First Creek, essentially. So when we're talking about dewatering, what we're actually talking about is the distance from the intake to Haskell Creek itself, that little stretch. Haskell Creek doesn't get dewatered,

Correct, yeah. There's actually, I believe, six creeks that feed the main stem of Haskell Creek. The city has water rights to first, second, and third. We don't use any of the water rights from first, and we don't have any water rights in fourth through sixth.

Okay, so we're really talking about that stretch of creek between the intake and where it joins into the main stem.

For second and third, correct.

And so I pulled up the map. which is actually in the packet on page 264, if anybody cares. But it looks to me like the intakes are actually pretty close to the main stem, or they're down, which would make sense, right? So we're not actually talking about a lot of creek here. Am I understanding this correctly? OK. Okay. Unless I've said something wrong, we can move forward then. Okay. And then my second question is, ironically, when Mike was up here, well, when I was going through this plan earlier, I made my own note, a comment that is exactly what Mike's comments were, which is, should we further explore groundwater to diversify ourselves in the event of a wire to fire? I'm just curious what your thoughts are on that, Craig, if you would.

Yes, we should. And that is a recommendation in the report.

Okay, so whatever steps are necessary.

Yeah, I mean it won't be an inexpensive alternative and there is risk to mixing groundwater with surface water. Alan mentioned briefly the opportunity perhaps to have a well at the intake that pumps directly into the creek to add flow and preserve habitat, but that in and of itself would also take research and you know, chemical analysis to make sure that groundwater in Haskell Creek isn't going to have an adverse, you know, effect on the habitat. But I do think it is, it's worth continued exploration. Sure.

And research. And what would you think the next steps would be in that, in that regard?

I'm most likely probably drilling some, you know, some test wells to see what we could find.

Okay. And that's on the city's radar to do in the future?

It's not in the CIP right now, but it's something that, you know, based on the feedback we've had from this report, I think we should consider.

I think we should, too. Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Ben.

Rebecca? Could you comment on Carnes? She's saying there was a CREAT, C-R-E-A-T, Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool that she didn't think was included in this. But it was about how climate action would affect our water systems, I guess, and the financial consequences of a changing climate. And I just wondered how we would add that if this got adopted tonight.

Yeah, so we did that climate resiliency study through money that was provided by EPA back in, I think, 2022. That report had three main findings. One was the remote telemetry, or somehow monitoring flow from Haskell that's in this master plan. One, I believe was the increased water storage, which is in this master plan. And then there was a third, I'm sorry, one was the emergency wild fire response plan, which we're working on. And then there was a third, which was fireproofing a building up at the water plant, which is a fairly minimal project. It was estimated about $3,000 back in 2022. We haven't completed that yet, but it's typically not something you'd see in a plan of this scale. It's essentially taking a building that houses existing controls and switching it from a wood frame building to a cinder block building. So kind of minor in scale. It wouldn't take much to reference this plan, this 22 climate resiliency evaluation and awareness tool, but I can tell you that the recommendations from that plan are incorporated into the 2026 master plan.

So I called Paul McKenzie today just to see how, how he felt about, since he's on the Haskell Commission, if it would affect their management of the property at all. And he said this has been going on such a long time that the creek beds are dry a lot of the time anyways. And so I'm just wondering Why have we not actually addressed this over the last 15 years if it perpetually was brought up? What's been going on? Is it just that we have such a strong need to provide water that we're prioritizing that versus this complaint that we're dewatering downstream? and it doesn't seem to affect us as a city. It's a big conflict.

I'm sorry.

Like I said before for the last several years, you know at the request of the Haskell Basin Watershed Council we we have not been drying those creeks up we have been spilling water at second and third Creek and Not taking any water from first Creek. So if there are observed dry beds up there I think it's because that water is going underground and

So it's awkward because they're all recommending that we do more and and you're basically saying no and so but so far this plan is that we're going to do the actuator valves to start and then if that doesn't work we might go to telemetry later. Is that a possibility?

Yeah, the way that the plan reads, it recommends we proceed with the actuated valve at the plant prior to proceeding with remote telemetry. That said, we have direction from council to continue to evaluate the remote telemetry and come up with a more accurate cost estimate. So we will continue to do that.

OK so we will have we'll have reports about whether or not that's going to work and about the drilling and of wells and things like that in the future. So I'm bringing this up publicly because the public is here and concerned and so I just want them to know that we are like aware and that we will have follow up on what they're saying. Is that right. OK. Thank you.

I would entertain a motion.

I move to approve the plan as presented.

Would that be for resolutions 2634 and 35?

Affirmative.

Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by Councillor Davis. Further discussion?

Yes, Mr. mayor, as I said, this is not a plan that is cast in marble. And I'm okay, I'm, I'm. Satisfied with the current presentation. We can adopt this master plan tonight and we can still direct direct the staff. TO IN THE COMING MONTHS OR YEAR EVALUATE TELEMETRY VERSUS AS AN ADDITIONAL FEATURE. AND, YOU KNOW, REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH SATELLITE INFRASTRUCTURE MIGHT BECOME MUCH MORE APPROACHABLE AND AFFORDABLE AS TECHNOLOGY MOVES FORWARD. SO I WOULDN'T BE TOO CONCERNED OF WHAT THE STATUS QUO IS TONIGHT.

THANK YOU, GIOCEPPI. FURTHER COMMENTS? All those in favor please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks very much Craig. Thanks folks for coming out tonight to provide comments. We'll move on to item seven which is communications from our finance director regarding the 2020 27 through FY 31 CIP. Laney.

Good evening again, Council and Mayor. We are presenting here the five-year capital improvements plan, also referred to as the CIP, for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. This planning document identifies needed investments in capital facilities and equipment that will be maintained by the City of Whitefish over the next five years for our current and increasing population in addition to its significant seasonal population. This document outlines the uses of the program and such things as planning for facilities and infrastructure to maintain adequate levels of service and to accommodate new growth. The state of Montana requires that a capital improvement plan be updated every five years. However, the city of Whitefish updates the plan annually to ensure proper planning for changing circumstances. Each year department directors identify capital purchases or projects that are needed to maintain current levels of service or achieve expanded levels of service that would accommodate anticipated growth. Other steps of the process in developing the capital improvement plan are outlined on page three of the CIP, which I believe is page 67 in your packet, with the annual outcome of projects identified and included in the final budget adopted each year. While the capital improvement plan document encompasses a five-year period, we provide details of the planned capital expenditures for fiscal year 2027 within each department. Page 668 of the packet, which is page four of the document, reflects an anticipated five-year outlay of $55,568,881. Capital purchases may be paid for from a variety of funding sources, which can include grants, impact fees or donations, or resort tax imposing restrictions for which some projects must meet certain requirements. Page five of the CIP lists the types of funding sources that are utilized when appropriate by the City of Whitefish for capital purchases. When needed, the City Council considers proposed increases for both water and wastewater utility rates to ensure proper funding of necessary capital improvements for the water and wastewater utilities. With the completion of the South Water Storage and Production Project, which has already begun and is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 28, future rate increases may be required to cover the debt service that will be associated with this project. Beginning in February of 2025, the dedication of resort tax dollars was reallocated according to a vote that went to the electorate in November of 2023. 48% of the 3% resort tax can be used to repair, maintain and improve streets, storm sewers, underground utilities, sidewalks and curbs and gutters. 10% of the 3% can be used for improvements and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian paths and other park acquisitions, capital improvements and equipment. This reallocation allows for additional funding for streets, parks and paths projects and could be leveraged to obtain additional sources of funding. With the annual revision of the capital improvement plan, the progress made toward the completion of identified projects is monitored. Each year, staff review the projects that were accomplished consider any changes in circumstances or economic factors, and make necessary updates to the plan. On pages 8 through 11 of the CIP, a general five-year overview of proposed projects and capital purchases by department is provided, and funding sources are identified in the gray lines at the end of each departmental listing. All items listed in this summary under the column titled Fiscal Year 2027 are listed in detail by department in pages 14 through 40. We list each purchase or project and the pertinent details including description, total project cost, anticipated useful life, project type and funding source or sources. The details are provided only for projects slated to be purchased or carried forward or begin in Fiscal Year 2027. prior years prior year or years expenditures for projects are reflected were applicable as well as the anticipated cost for the current fiscal year and into the next four years of this five-year plan this comprehensive capital improvement plan is intended to reflect projects and purpose purchases considered with intention by department directors to be a priority for fiscal year 27 and spanning the next five years. And staff recommend adoption of this fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 31 capital improvement plan. Happy to field any questions or feedback.

Thanks Lainey. Any questions for Lainey?

May I?

Giuseppe?

Yes. Boy, lots of work on the numbers. Good. Lainey, first of all, thank you. Very good report. I'd like to put a couple of questions on the record and then a couple of clarifications. So, uh, let's, uh, let's confirm adopting the tonight. It's it's an action for planning purposes. Am I correct? That it does not appropriate money or constitute. Uh, final approval of each individual project. Am I correct?

That's correct. The budget is your document for approving appropriations and the is your planning document.

Perfect Thank you now. In the plan, how are the projects ranked? Say that some revenue or some grant funding comes short or below expectation, how do we decide what gets deferred or prioritized?

Yeah, I'm gonna say that the recommendations come from the departmental staff first, and then in the process of doing the budget, that will then incorporate city manager approval and discussion, and then it goes before the city council.

So the plan doesn't have a guideline criteria set for prioritizing projects if the funds are not available or if we need to get into more debt or increase taxes.

Yeah, I think the nature of the five-year plan means we can Um, accommodate, you know, economic factors and decide where, um, you know, which year we're going to. We're going to be able to address.

Okay, thank you. Which brings me to my next question. Uh, in this plan right now, it's very detailed as you said. Is there any project that today has no identified funding sources and might require additional taxes, debt, or rate increases as well?

I'd say that every project that we have is earmarked with a particular funding source or combination thereof. So in some cases we're using like land water conservation grant monies and then we sometimes subsidize the project with resort tax dollars if it's a resort tax applicable project. But everything that is in the fiscal year 27 component of the CIP Um, is funded.

Okay, thank you. And I have 1 last question. Um. Since tonight, the council approved. Substantially higher tax levy. Does that approval, uh, which you did not have because the proposed budget. Had a plus 5 meals carry over and recaptured. Plus 10 meals carry over and if I make my math correctly. WE HAVE INCREASED THE TAX REVENUE FROM 31.8% TO 42.3% WITH THAT VOTE. DOES THAT AFFECT THE CIP PLAN IN A BETTER WAY? BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE MORE REVENUE. AND WHERE?

NO, NOT REALLY. IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE PLAN. I THINK THAT IT GIVES YOU LATITUDE TO MAKE OTHER DECISIONS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR. THANK YOU.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Thank you.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Any additional questions for Laney or staff for that matter. Please.

I move I move to I'm sorry adopt the fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 31 capital improvement program as presented by our wonderful finance director.

Second. Seconded by Councillor Sweeney further discussion. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed, likes on, and that motion does carry unanimously. Thanks very much, Laney. I know you worked very diligently on the plan. It's much appreciated. You have Dana's report enclosed with the packet. Any questions for our city manager? Dana, anything additional to report on?

I do, I have a couple things. I'll keep them brief. Just first, a reminder, next meeting is on a Tuesday, September 8th, due to the Labor Day holiday. Let's talk about the CWPP for a second. The agreement with SWCA was a contract for $87,000. We extended the comment period. The comment period on the draft plan is closed. They're now incorporating the comments certain comments where they see applicable into the draft plan. Our intent will be to bring that to city council at a work session to review and then eventually to a public hearing for adoption. the work session was not in that $87,000 contract, that's why I brought that up. So I am asking council if you are okay for me signing a contract amendment. The total cost, because we had feedback on the difficult readability of the plan, it's very technical, there's a lot of pages, it's a very large document, with updating the executive summary with revisions from the comments, but really creating a homeowner guidance document, because I think that was kind of some of the feedback we got. So that'd be a standalone part of the document. It pulls out basically the homeowner to-dos. And then participation in the work session, we'd be looking at about $10,000 additional added to their contract. They've also offered developing a project hub website. It would be hosted on our website, but they could go through that development of that website. That's an additional $8,578, so a total budget amendment for that project, or project amendment, of $18,883.60. In general, I'm absolutely comfortable with the council work session, the guidance document, the executive summary change to better serve the public based on the public comment. I'm not sure about the project hub site yet, but if you guys are interested in that, I just wanna get some feedback on that. Usually I can amend contracts within 10%. This would be a little bit higher than that. Rebecca.

Yeah I think it's necessary I think it is very well comprehensive but it was hard to read and I think it won't be as user friendly unless we do that kind of outreach and make it somewhat simpler to for people to actually utilize. So I'm in favor.

Showing of hands. and we'll hold off on the web development until perhaps the work session.

Okay, that sounds great. And then also on CWPP and growth policy, thanks to Alan, I had sent him a link to a grant that I saw that came up. He only had like a week maybe to get it done. We were successful in getting, being selected to participate with the CEPAW program. It's the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire. program, it's one year of technical assistance. They will be completing an audit of our land use, our current policies, our capacity and development code. They really help with land use planning, so just excited to have them. It's grant funded through the US Forest Service, but that's gonna really help support our consultants when we go through the zoning updates, the big zoning updates for the growth policy, and we'll be able to check off one of the recommendations within the CWPP right now. So that's exciting. They've helped a lot of communities in Colorado, Hawaii, Missoula County, and Big Sky locally. Last update I have is the North Whitefish Lake Community Fire Association. If you recall, they're the group that we're working with to apply for the DNRC easement. I anticipate bringing an MOU update forward to council within the next month or so. We worked with DNRC, I think we have a path forward. I was at a meeting on Saturday at their house where they brought in residents from Rest Haven, from Iron Horse were there to really, and even just their surrounding neighborhoods to try to see how this location and working together with Iron Horse could help really create a good fire network. And so it was all very positive at that meeting, but I just wanna let you know, you'll see that update come forward and they're getting prepared for us to help them with that application process here soon. I think that's all I have for tonight.

Thank you, Dana. On that note, we will move on to item 8C, which is consideration of a request from Habitat for a resort tax fund to purchase 1974 and 1982 Whitefish Avenue to construct two townhomes. Dana.

All right, you have my staff report in the packet. I'm not gonna cover everything in that. As you know, earlier this year we approved, or the city council approved $250,000 to support the purchase of, I believe it was 1966, something else, the neighboring property. They have broken ground on that project and we did contribute our funds to that they now have the opportunity to purchase the lot right next door It is a little bit larger lot so it will provide two townhomes, but also Park park space for those four townhomes. What would be four townhomes? They still have the same requirements within the agreement that's been drafted to require restriction of ownership with incomes at or below 80 percent area median income two-year completion of the project annual progress reports from habitat the shared appreciation allowing the homeowner to capture 25 percent of the appreciated value at the time of sale and the city's ability to audit the financial records of the project They have reviewed the agreement as well and are prepared to sign with your approval. The fiscal year 2027. Resort tax budget does have appropriations available for this type of project. We have yet to create our grant program or committee that is in the works, so that is why I'm bringing this forward today. When you account for other committed funds already, we do have. $814,000 available for programs and projects for fiscal year 27 and so the $250,000 is easily fit within the current budget. We support this, staff supports this request for the city to purchase the lots at 1974 and 1982 Whitefish Avenue and we recommend city council approve such request.

Great project, I would entertain a motion please.

I would move that we award the grant or the request to purchase those two lots for $250,000 to Habitat for Humanity.

I second it. Seconded by Councilor Caltaviano. Further discussion?

I just wanted to say thank you to Mr. Brett Campbell, because he gave us the lot at a discount, so made it possible.

Thanks, Rebecca. Ben?

I just wanted to say that I've said this before, so I won't belabor the point, but this model that we're seeing here where we're using some of our municipal funds combined with other grants, 2% mortgages, volunteer labor, other nonprofits participating in this process, really provides, in my opinion, a very strong value for the use of our affordable housing dollars. And in my opinion, I think this is exactly what the citizens were expecting when they authorized this affordable housing fund. So I appreciate that you're here and that you stuck around, Mary Beth, through our budget discussion. I'm sure that was enlightening. And in any event, I appreciate the work you're doing and please proceed. Thank you.

Thanks Mary Beth. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand. Those opposed like sign and that is unanimous. Michelle you do thank you Mary Beth very much. We do have a letter enclosed in the packet from Shane regarding motorized vehicles on public pathways. Any comments on that letter. I think we've seen these comments before.

So one of the garbage cans might have gotten hit by an electric bike. Maria do you know about that or Richard? It was at the footbridge and it got taken down for repairs and I thought maybe you had just taken it and so I called to say we need it and Jenny said that it was possibly hit by an electric bike and so I just wonder are we doing any Is there anything else we can do to keep people safe on the trails? I just don't know if we should, like he's calling for signage. He says it's very difficult to enforce it. But is there anything else that you guys have thought about making people more compliant and not hitting our garbage cans?

Um, you know, I think as we, the first level enforcement of our ordinance and state laws regarding electric devices, I guess we'll say, um, is education and that's where we're at now. So the police department has made a valiant effort and I think it's been successful with electric motorcycles. When you deal with bicycles and electric assist bicycles it's a little bit more difficult. I think the law reference electric scooters is clear and as we gear up enforcement of those determining whether or not they're self-propelled or electrically powered is going to be some learning curve in that but I think that'll be fairly easy to enforce but I think as we move forward and I think the legislation will take this up again especially with classifying electric bicycles hopefully in the next legislation but I think our current ordinance covers that state law covers that and we'll continue to work with Parks and Rec I was not aware of the trash can being hit I don't think that was reported to the police department but if you see trouble areas or places that we could point our enforcement to that would be helpful.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF Just one thing quickly. Is it possible to push the idea of signage off to the bike ped committee because I don't think that's a bad idea to have speed limits and other types of signs that are a little more visible. Is that something you guys could take up at bike ped.

DIRECTOR HARRIS We do have a way finding Plan and bike path sign plan and we parks and recreation manages that and we do review it with bike pad Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks Maria. We're gonna move on to adjournment. We'll start with counselor Comments Giuseppe. Thanks for joining us remotely and be safe out there any comments this evening. I

Yes, my pleasure and thank you for this technology on the regular meeting is amazing that apart from being in a dark room, I feel almost like I'm there. So I appreciate the technicians who make this possible before I adjourn. I just wanted to encourage everyone. To join us on September 11 at 11 am at the emergency services center for the unveiling of phase 1 of our 9911 memorial. I'm sure we all read the report and that's the top paragraph in that report in the future events. It's important that we continue to remember. those we lost, honor the first responders who ran towards danger and not away from it, and make sure that a new generation understands what that day meant for our country. I hope to see many members of our community there and in the future supporting those actions. Thank you.

Thank you, Giuseppe. Steve.

thanks mayor yeah thanks Giuseppe I will not be able to attend I will be actually in school teaching students who were born in 2012 about September 11th just one quick question for for Craig North Carrow the weeds are pretty much out of control there is anybody has that been addressed

Are you talking about in whitefish yards?

Yeah, behind there, the weeds, that whole hillside is covered in noxious weeds.

Okay. Yeah, I think that really becomes a code enforcement issue, but we can work with that property owner.

actually don't know who the property owner is i don't think anybody does at the current time but i just wanted to bring it up because i ride through there regularly and it's it's pretty bad okay uh... thank you that's all i have tonight thanks steve frank i just want to give a big shout out to the wave and carrie jacobs in particular who runs the swimming program at the wave

She put on, or has for the past five or seven years, put on the Swim the Fish activity, which was supposedly two weeks ago, Saturday or Sunday, whenever it was. We unfortunately were unable to hold the activity or the race per se because the air quality was so bad that we weren't authorized to do that. But since the volunteers were there, and the buoys were set the public was allowed to take advantage of that set course and if they wanted to swim they could and we did and it was a great success and everybody had a great time so I'd just like to again acknowledge what a great work she's done and what the wave has done for those kinds of activities it's it's a great thing for our community so thanks thanks Frank Ben

Um, I would start by congratulating Mayor Mohlfeld for, uh, exercising a very rare vote up here. Um, but, uh, work on your right arm strength. But anyway, um, no, that was a healthy discussion. I just wanted to thank you all for it. I, I, uh, it's a good one to have and I, I appreciate the differences of opinion and, um, glad we can, um, constructively work towards, um, the best answer at least for the majority. So, um, All good, and I do mean the budget was well done. So thank you, staff. On the budget, I would also make the comment that one of these days, I would love to think about How we present the budget so like I said this before and I'm positive saying again, but maybe now that we're done with it We can we have more downtime we can work on it one day where we actually like how it's presented Like especially historically like how we measure ourselves and how we measure the budget over time I think could be improved. I'd love to help work on that if I could My second comment would be I at some point or tell me where or how to follow up on the exploratory wells for wildfire resilience. I do think that the risk of us losing our drinking water in Haskell Creek is real, in my opinion, for at least some period of time. And so I think it would behoove us to advance that concept forward if it makes sense and if everybody agrees so. And then the last comment I had is just on the deed restrictions with habitat. I did send you an email Dana. I Honestly, I know you responded to me today, and I didn't get a chance to read it but I think in general if you could help help us make sure that As we're providing these funds to to habitat and the land trust that were covered in the event that either one of those organizations were to fail for some reason and that we don't lose our affordable housing stock. So however, if you could just help us make sure that that happens, I'd appreciate that. And that's all my comment.

Thank you, Ben. Rebecca?

No comment.

Thank you, Rebecca.

Andy. Quickly, again, thanks to staff and everybody up here for going through yet another budget season. And I think it's only seven and a half months before we get to start again. So there you go. Quick shout out to Lizzie and Craig for being 83% of the capital improvement budget. I think that's a... I think that's worthy of note. Quick question for Craig. I've had a couple of people call me and ask about the exterior H2O insurance, water line insurance, the letter that we all received. And first one was, is this a scam? And I said, no, it's not a scam. But just quickly for everybody that might still be listening or read the minutes, just a quick explanation. It was pretty good in the letter, but people were like, what? Do I do this? Do I not?

Although I will say that the initial launch has not been very smooth. Okay, that's what I was sensing. There's been complaints that on their website, 59937 is not an area they service. We've had complaints that in order to answer questions, they want email addresses and credit card numbers. I've relayed all of this to our main correspondent at HomeServe, and I haven't had any response from him. I will say that I believe MMIA endorsed this. No. the League of Cities, excuse me, National League of Cities endorsed this insurance company, and so we're still in the learning phase, but it is my understanding that for 70-some dollars a year, they will insure your water service from where the city's responsibility stops at the curb stop to your house.

Up to $12,000.

Up to $12,000. Sorry, that was small print.

Of eligible costs, probably, would be my guess. There's a little copy of it. Other than that, Giuseppe, be safe out there and up there, and we look forward to seeing you back here and warming your chair up soon.

Thanks, Andy. Just wanted to give a shout out to my niece and nephew. They're both off to college this week to MSU and the University of Hawaii, but it was their birthdays this week. I'm super proud of them and love them a ton. And my brother and his wife have done an incredible job raising them. So congrats to them as well. On that note, Alan, thanks for coming tonight and your work on the water and wastewater and sewer plans, et cetera, et cetera. Appreciate your input as always. And that was an excellent report. It's a good resource to have at our hands. Other than that, staff, thank you. On that note, we will be adjourned. We'll see you September 8th, which is a Tuesday. Thanks.