going to 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 Councelor Kalabiano, who is on
fire duty. and thank you for joining us
tonight. Uh just be remotely I
appreciate it. We will start with our
pledge of allegiance and Mike Copel. Do
you mind leading us?
liberty for all.
» 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. Um, otherwise,
anything you'd like to bring to the
attention of the council that's either
on the agenda or otherwise, and now
would be your opportunity. Name
addressed for the record, please. Toby,
» I just have a request of you
and that is to request of the middle
school perhaps a uh
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 uh 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
in within the city. That's all.
Thank you, Toby.
Ma'am,
» hello. My name is Marcela 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. Uh, and I am asking
that we allocate $250,000
uh of our resort tax towards Habitat for
Humanity. Um, they have a proven track
record of success here in the valley. uh
not just in Whitefish but also in uh 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. Uh,
and uh, we have to be able to support
our teachers and our first responders
and and 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 um reduce risk of injury because
they're not having to travel as far, but
we also um 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. They could
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.
>> Thanks, Miss Williams.
» Jamie.
>> Hello. I'm Jamie Goen. I too am a
resident of Whitefish and I would like
to say that everything Marcelo Williams
just said verbatim ditto. Speaking as an
employer, uh, this has been very real
and
seeing housing go up and is very
exciting and I think the town is very
excited. I'm really excited that we got
your blessing last for the last year's
uh allocation to build on White Fish
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
other only other thing I'd like to bring
up is along Edgewood Avenue uh at the
stop signs of Dakota and Iowa uh the
grasses are very tall and sometimes the
people are very short and They're
walking and then they're about to
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 Went. I'm an engineer with
AE2S here in support of the water master
plan tonight. Um, I'm responsible for
the plan and I just wanted to talk a
little bit about the process we went
through. Um, there were a number of
alternatives that we considered. Not all
of them made it. Uh, the numbers
actually got quite large and daunting
once you start looking at the cost of a
lot of these public infrastructure type
product projects. Um, there are number
of projects that are right on the cusp
and 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 White Fish
Avenue. Um the we're actually digging
for the foundation tomorrow. So, sorry
we broke ground, but the foundation is
starting to go excavation for the
foundation is going in. Um I think Jamie
and Marcela 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. Um 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. Uh 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 um we're over 100,000
raised from the community and 140
donors. So there's widespread community
support for what we're doing um and have
incredible momentum as they commented. I
want to make a suggestion that I know on
White Fish Avenue we're still waiting
for permits and I guess we can excavate
without permits so we're moving forward
but it's a 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 you know 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, counselors, Richard Iner, 104th
Street. I just want to thank um Dana and
whoever else might have been involved in
extending the public comment period for
the CWP draft. uh two weeks was really
short and hard to meet and thanks for
extending that a week and I think
hopefully that you got more comments and better information. Um but what I'm
also interested in is what are the next
steps and what are the timelines for
those next steps in the next part of the
CWP. I also want to say that I support
Habitat's request for that $250,000.
They're they're right at they're out of
the gate and 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 Pitman. 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.
resil
management plan. Um, this plan
recommends Scott and telemetry
improvements at Grass Mountain facility
because real-time monitoring would allow
city staff to manage those facilities
more efficiently and respond to problems
quickly. at Grass 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. consumes staff time and also
introduces city staff to very real
safety considerations. Uh I've done
backcountry snow survey work with the
USDA. I'm quite familiar with tracked
vehicles in backcountry settings and
those risks. Uh 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.
Um, these real time monitoring flows
would allow the city
uh how 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 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 wersheds 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 CWP.
It is a very important document. I think
you know anybody tracking the news
um can see how catastrophic a fire could be to the culture, the community,
the economy here. Um I echo Richard's
comments on extending and gratitude for
extending the comment period. Um,
I think the
uh the process from now um is to
incorporate comments, review how those
comments have been incorporated
um and to share with the public once
again. I look forward to that and so
does the rest of the committee. Um, I
think there was a bit of news recently
um from Sanders County that showed that
um the BNSF train caused a small fire
there which was thankfully put out. Um,
I think that goes to show the importance
of uh crossing our tees and dotting our
eyes on this report. Uh, and again,
thanks for your attention to that issue.
and I look forward to reviewing the next
version. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Ryan, and for your service on
the committee.
Further volunteer board reports from the
audience.
Michelle, anyone online? That be
council
Frank? I have one uh an update from the
park board and something I think is
incredibly important for this group as
well as um all the public. There's been
a request uh for a proposal for a stage,
a permanent stage of some size at depot
park. Um and given the history of the
formation of that park and how we put it
together, um the parkboard fence 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 parkour 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. um putting a permanent
park uh stage structure in the park. Um
there's going to be a uh uh community engagement u meeting September
16th at 6 o'clock uh at city hall. Um
and I encourage any and all of us to
attend um and see what what's being said
because it's I think it's it's a
significant enough uh request and to how
the park is being operated now
that I think we really ought to be
paying attention.
Thank you.
>> My only comment to that, if I may, is I
think the time has come for us to
consider a permanent band stand 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. 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,
>> and that's the reason we're doing it.
Thank you.
>> Further volunteer board reports.
Rebecca,
>> yeah, just the climate action committee
met. Um Ryan mentioned that we reviewed
the wildfire plan.
There's some feedback that it was a
little bit to read and not very user
friendly and so sorry but um so we're
anxious about the next stage of what
happened. So maybe at the end of the
meeting we could talk about that. Um but
Richard showed up and talked about fire
again and presented another um plan from
the North Fork which was really helpful.
Um, and then there was a tour of the
sustainability center and then the the
teacher that runs that came to the
meeting and talked about how the
community might be more supportive in
using that center um to produce more
food. Um, and we're still working on the
I don't know what the modeling using a
lot of math um 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 have the consent
agenda enclosed in the packet from the
August 3rd, 2026 special as well as 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
councelor Sweeney. Further discussion?
Showing of hands in favor, please. 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 levying assessments?
>> So, I would um 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. Um, 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 comments?
Anyone online? Michelle,
» for those of you who are attending
online, would you if you would like to
speak towards the amendments for the
FY26 budget, please raise your hand.
I think we're good.
>> Thanks, Michelle. I'll turn it back to
the council for a motion or discussion.
I move to um approve resolution number
26-22,
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.
>> Record. Okay.
Sorry, we're trying to get out of here.
I deserve a second to the motion
seconded by councelor Cornell. Further
discussion Jeppy 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?
» Laney?
>> Sure.
Hello council and mayor. Um yes, for
this particular resolution um um let's
see I had to cut out some of my
presentation here. Um 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, Laney. We will take public
comment at this point. Any comments from
the public on this hearing? Richard,
» just a quick question. Does that have
street
and does this have any impact on whether
or not we can squeeze um the request
from Habitat uh for uh additional funds
or would it affect how we can ask for
additional funds for the proposed
project that you'll hear about later in
» does either one of the SID 166 or the
revolving fund have those kinds of
monies in them that could be used. So um
what is proposed here and 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 amount in that fund
than legally allowed by state law which
is up to 10% of the current outstanding
principle. that amount um 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 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.
>> Have no effect on the projects that you
>> 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. Resolution 26-23.
Frank,
>> I'll move to approve resolution uh
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?
>> Seconded by councelor Davis. Further
discussion, Jeppi.
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. Uh
we will move on to our FY27 budget tax
levy and assessments public hearing. I
will entertain one
uh 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,
>> good evening, mayor and city council.
It's my pleasure to present um 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. um
because we've had so much work done, I'm
going to focus on the the updates that
we've had since your most rec recent
work session and then some of the risk
and just policy overall um impacts that
we have in the budget. So, just as a
reminder, the state uh tax changes that
occurred with Senate Bill 542 and House
Bill 231 um introduced 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. Um 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. Um, in
response to this risk and reducing
exposure, the proposed budget in the
council packet prudently captures an
additional five mills. We will monitor
um both of uh the implementation and
litigation around Senate Bill 542 and
House Bill 231
just to see, you know, 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.
And on to the revenue side of things.
Late um on Monday, August 3rd, the city
received its taxable value from the
department of revenue. Our certified
taxable value rose 16 a.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
2,32,000
of reserves for one-time projects in
property tax supported funds. That
includes 918,000 for the depot park town
homes project, about uh $1.1 million for
capital projects.
Residential property tax impacts um
include about a 7 $7.76
um annual increase for a 1 million.01
um I guess $1 million home um that is a
primary residence. And so that is less
than a 1% increase. A 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 um there was no homestead
exemption, a home valued at that $1
million would see a 6.4% increase or
about $5166.
So that shows for that second home the
change um 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 storm
water 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 streets ma 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 uh with a reasonable you know
time time of debt to asset ratio uh
asset life ratio
debt um our debt profile remains
manageable no general obligation debt.
Our primary outstanding obligations are
water and wastewater SRF loans and our
uh special improvement district 167 or
downtown parking structure.
The um added mills provide tax revenue
to support two new inner cap loans. Um
one is for the ice den roof replacement
which um 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 uh fire department's ladder
truck which has been on order um and is
expected in fiscal year I think 28 or
29.
But at least we have the the revenue to
support that loan um when uh it is uh
arrives. Um the fiscal year budget it
successfully has all city positions
reaching market rates that were um
identified in the 2024 wage market rate
study. Um the standard adjustment is a
4% increase with a 2% cost of living
adjustment and a 2% step. Health
benefits um premiums increased 5%. The
city will be covering about 81% of total
premiums. It helps moderate the employee
impact, but also is is a cost to the
city.
New positions are added in the budget um
including some positions that have moved
from part-time to full-time, and that
includes a city a second city mechanic,
a weekend park maintenance tech, a court
clerk, an assistant library director.
These uh positions mitigate service
bottlenecks, reduce outsourcing and
improve our continuity.
Utilities um for water and wastewater um
there are rate um adjustments considered
in the budget. Um but um there has not
been a decision on what those will be.
Um it is likely that we'll see um
anywhere from a one and a half to two
and a half or 3% increase. Um but that
will be done over uh or that would be a
discussion that we'll have later this
fall. solid waste is contracted um with
uh Republic Services and with that
contract comes a 3.25% annual increase.
So the property tax supported uh funds
um 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. Um,
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 director, 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,
um Dana, uh can you just repeat what you
said for me? I think I think I got this
clear. You said that um if we had if if
they hadn't changed if House Bill 231
hadn't passed where they revised the the
um tax rates uh for second homeowners,
the average person the average million
dollar home in Whitefish, which is about
average um would have gone up 6.17%.
>> Would have gone up [clears throat]
excuse me um 6.45%
>> 6.45%
>> about $51. But because of the changes,
we're able to hold dur under this
budget, we're able to hold that at less
than 1%
>> less than 1% at $7.76
for the year for a primary resident
>> as part of the city tax portion of your
>> 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. because I
didn't I wasn't quite aware that it was
that big of a difference. 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 2%
increase plus a 2% step as well.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So that's a roughly a 4% increase
for everybody plus the other ones that
are coming up to
>> correct. Some are already at 100% and
then some will will include an increase
up to like 5% additional.
>> So we're doing pretty good by our for
our employees at this point.
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay. Um and then we still have 30.7% in
the reserves or our reserves at 30 our
reserves will be at 30.7% under this
budget.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Um, good. Uh, and but that's down
from 35% in the last fiscal year.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay. So, we're spending down 5%
of our reserves.
>> Yeah. It's kind of a function of
expenditures, too. So, as your
expenditures go up, um the the the
calculation of what you need in reserves
also changes. So, um, we are spending
down, uh, from what our beginning fund
balance is for the year, about $2
million, um, for those, uh, capital
projects and the depot park town homes.
We are not spending down for operations
under this, um, proposed budget, uh,
which is the first time in quite a few
years. Um, 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 funs. Correct.
>> Most are not reoccurring or they're within your control. It's not
like a position that you would have to
lay off. Um, you know, some of the ones
that are in there for capital that I
think of might that could be recurring
are like a patrol ve vehicle. We do
replace one every year. Um, we do have
some parks equipment, you know, that
you're replacing every year or five. You
know, it could it depends on their
replacement schedule. So, some of them
are recurring, but the the majority of
those costs are not reoccurring 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 question.
>> It's improved significantly. Yes. Yes.
Yeah. It's just the capital items where
you know it but operational supplies and
um personnel services those are fully
covered under this budget.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um and then I I
do have a couple questions. I'm I'm just
confused about this this whole issue
with the state
um possibly limiting our ability to levy
carryover mills in the future. Um have
they and 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. Um but just like with taxable
value, we were this last session, you
know, they started at 50%. you'd only
get 50%. Um, lot of lobbying, got that
to 75%.
My my biggest concern is the the county
came out and said, "We're levying our
carryover mills because of the
uncertainty." Um, I think other
communities likely are as well. And my
concern is once they see that, they're
going to eliminate what's remaining.
>> Okay. And but they they could go back if
they wanted to and say, "Well, actually,
we're going to reindex where you were
and we're going to reindex it to the
beginning of fiscal year 26 when you
when pe 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 uh
property taxpayers. So typically the tax
bills are forwardlooking,
>> but we're talking about the Montana
state legislature in Helena. Correct.
>> Correct. Yes. But the Department of
Revenue, you know, has a a big job on
their hands. So it it would depend on
the legislation. Um but I would see, you
know, 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 mills for our fire
department. and and the state did change
that and said sure you can keep the 24
mills but you have to adjust to the
prior year revenue collection and then
you're you're based on taxable value or
you can change to dollar value
assessment and then go up with our
calculation for 1510420. So there's some
stuff that's retroactive and and they
aren't even necessarily I 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 they 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
>> what's in the
>> from what from what the original
proposed budget was.
>> Correct.
>> We're adding an extra five mills to try
to capture some of that money.
>> Correct.
>> Um, but the concern and and there's been
a lot of hand ringing about this um on
the city council about what do we do
about this? Um, but it just seems that
no matter what we do, they're going to
paint a bullseye around us anyway. Um,
and if we 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. Yeah. Well, I think we'll with the
five mills. Um,
>> but it just seems to me that they would
that I mean,
>> does it seem it just seems to me anyway
and I'll and then I'll ask you one more
question, I'll be done, but it just
seems to me that if we do that, you
know, that's going to draw their
attention even more than um than us
actually doing right by our city
residents for years and years and not
raising taxes. Uh, and this this five
mills is just to me it seems as if it's,
you know, $7 a year. Um the the last
question I have though is that if they
do if they do pass a law that says we
can't
um that we can't levy those uh carryover
mills.
Do those laws take effect immediately
and then we're 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 looks like they
tried to take away our mills now we
should go in and levy them rather than
>> so they could make
>> Could we do a budget amendment? What are
our options?
>> Yeah. So for next fiscal year, they can
make their bill bill bills effective
upon signing. Um they can be effective
immediately. Typically a bill is
effective October one, but um for tax
bills, they they can make them
immediately effective. So if you if you
recall the the 2025 legislation that
came out about the tax rates were for
fiscal year 26. So they adopted them,
you know, by May of 2025 and that was
effective for our budget that fall. So,
or summer, I guess for kind of summer,
but yeah, they 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 u by the 1st
of September. So, we couldn't go back
and levy for this fiscal year budget.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
>> Thank you, Steve. Rebecca.
>> Yep. Um Dana, could you just take a
minute to explain how when the tiff
expired, we then um normally the those
um okay taxes would go into the general
fund, but um at the time the city
manager advised the council to eliminate
10 mills. And so we 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 mills. Um but could you
explain that history because I think
it's kind of pertinent to right now.
Yeah. So um in um 2023
uh 2021
um our tiff value so with a tax
increment financing district the
increment, the amount that grows from
the base value, you know, until that sun
sets, that increment, that 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, um, included the
schools where we provided funding for
that. When that sun sets, um, 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. So big big
new taxable value coming in. had we
levied the full amount of our mills just
to absor to to recapture all of that
newly taxable 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. Um so we no longer have
the tiff funds but that year when we
reduced mills by 10 mills it did reduce
the city's total revenue that can be
invested um in the city. Often we used
tax increment there was some personal in
there. But, um, it was fairly minor. I
think it was like $400,000. A lot of
those funds were used though to like
redevelop um downtown um helping with um
the bike uh pathway in front of um the
fire brand helping with some of the
projects in town as well. So, so we did
provide a tax decrease that year
actually. Um and I was city manager at
the time, but it was the former city
manager that made that suggestion. And
that's fine. And I I I think at that
time we were in a different place in
time with COVID and uncertainty in the
market. And so I think it was a sound
decision. Uh but I do think you know
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 um home values haven't
changed. you know, the values of the
homes have gone up. So, those 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 uh 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 less you'd
have more constraint about managing big
projects. So yeah, so as like so as I I
just mentioned earlier with the five
added mills, we're still spending down
our reserves. Um of that the 918,000 for
depot park town homes like that we
already knew we were doing. That was
COVID um uh well state uh and local
fiscal fiscal recovery funds. ARPA I'll
just say that this is during the 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 mills, you would
reduce that spend down of reserves. If,
excuse me, if you went from the five
added to 10 added, um you would spend
down about $1.4 million. That would
leave us with about 33.81%
in reserves. Um and then you know you
could look at in the future years this
year you know it would still leave a
spendown of capital for us of about
$57,000 but in the future years you
could use it for capital like our patrol
vehicles or fire apparatus or parks
equipment that does get um replaced
frequently. Um or you could utilize
those funds to supplement workforce
needs um 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. Um, 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. Um, and that was presented to
you during the work session. You know,
we have a part-time IT position that
could go to full-time. We have other
department positions that have been
requested or 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 had
those fund those funds available, you've
recaptured it. The cost would be for a
million-dollar home about $53 for the
year. Um a 6.62%
increase which for that's a primary
residence which is pretty close to what
would have happened um with the five
mills if the tax rates hadn't changed if
you remember the 6.45%.
Um a second home would see you know a
larger increase at $711 but again the
majority of that is the state tax rate
changes too. Um, and so because it would
have been a $100 with a 10 mil increase
um for the for the year um or 12.55%
increase. So I hope I answered your
question. I kind of went off on a spiel.
>> Yeah, I just I just wanted to have um
some history and then also some
rationale going forward. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Rebecca. Additional questions
for our city manager
Jeppe. Anything?
>> Yes. Yes, sure. I was giving priority to
the people in the flesh. Uh Dana, we've
been working a lot on this budget. I'd
like for you to help me uh for the
public public record to check a couple
of numbers and then I have a couple of
questions. Uh, 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 the budget
that is in the packet. Yes. Correct.
>> And 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, uh is it correct
that we had a certified taxable value
increase of around 16.5%.
>> Yes, that's correct.
And is it correct that because of those
bills passed in Helena, we are quote
unquote saving around five mills 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 the state moved around
five mills worth of value from the uh
primary owners to the non- primary
owners?
>> I see what you're saying. Yes. Um yes,
based on the the primary residence 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
mills. Correct.
>> So the number of the total number of
mills levy levied is 60.12
mills.
>> Now there are 20 uh uh that are rebated
from the um resort tax. Am I correct?
>> Correct. Yes. Without resort tax it
would be yes. It' be 80.2.
>> Perfect. Thank you. And 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 $66,000.
Right.
>> Correct. Yes. Correct.
>> Perfect. I'm almost done now. I have a
couple questions and then I'm done.
Uh it it it 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. Um but the the
beginning fund balance for our property
tax supported funds is 8.17 million. Um
we anticipated ending fiscal year 26
with
uh 6.15
million. So we did have additional
beginning fund balance um over what was
projected. Um that was
let me see I got to see what I'm looking
at here. Um that was mostly when you
look at uh you know the the $2 million
you look at what was spent on uh depot
park town homes what we're carrying over
that's about a million of that dollar
difference because you know we're going
to anticipate spending that down again
this year. Um but we just didn't utilize
all the funds in fiscal year 26. Um and
then there were some other ones uh you
know department savings but also um uh
we had additional revenue over what we
had projected in some of the categories
and then some lower than expected as
well. So it yeah it's a net of ending
the year fiscal year 26 um with 8.17
uh but we had projected the 6.15 again
take a million off that because that was
the depot park town homes.
>> So thank you. So I was incorrect reading
five million. So if it was 2 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 1 million comes and goes. Uh
2 million I is around uh three and a
half mills. Am I correct or I'm saying
it wrong? So a million dollar is closer
to like seven maybe it'sund seven or
eight 121,000 times or a million divided
by 121,000
>> right so what I where I was going was is
that we are starting with around eight
meals for 1 million or 16 meals for two
million uh ahead of the curve than we
thought before.
>> Correct. And I, you know, 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 were gonna that was budgeted to be
spent and will be carried forward.
$150,000 for White Fish Yards, uh the to
Sky Park Bridge Trail. Um you have the
Riverbend Path, that's smaller, about
$25,000. Um so there have been some
carryover projects that weren't
completed in fiscal year 26, but are
carry 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, Jeppi. 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 wondering
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 that's a good question.
So as I mentioned like the the one that
stands out from a from a workforce uh
first we'll go into that the community
uh risk reduction specialist. Um I see
very important value in that position.
we're wrapping up our CWPP. Um, that's
going to 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, you know, I prioritize and
I've had like the mechanics been asked
for for probably three years and it and
I'm I'm putting the department heads at
notice like, yeah, you can request
something, but it's not necessarily
getting filled. So, um I'm sure there
are other positions that might be
necessary um or you know will be coming
up in the future. Um but so from a a
workforce perspective, there's that. Um
from capital perspective, uh the police
department needs another patrol vehicle.
We're putting one in the budget. They
actually need two. Our our police
vehicles are running all day, you know,
every day. And so they rack up a lot of
miles. And then, you know, you look at
um I'm trying to think of other ones off
the top of my head. Um 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.
Um parks and wreck, we need to replace
the tree grates downtown. Whose
responsibility is that? Um where are we
going to find the funding for that?
That's one that has just come up. and um
benches and downtown garbage cans come
out of our uh general fund. Those things
are not in this budget that um are
projects that we see value for the
community. Um finishing up that bear
resistant garbage containers from
basically I think it's Second South um
on Central Avenue to again, you know,
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 um
we can wait a little longer. vehicle um
till next year, but we're going to have
another one in next year's budget is
realistically what it's going to happen.
Um and then you know the garbage cans
just they are what they are. So those
are those are some of the projects, but
again I 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 um police, fire, and parks, there
are significant capital projects that
have been pushed out in years simply due
to funding.
» 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 taxi
excuse me tax levy and assessments which
includes resolution 26-24
I believe through resolution 26-33.
Any public comment this evening?
Mike.
» Good evening. Michael Hine, 612 Luffer,
Whitefish. I don't have a strong feeling
about the coming debate between five and
10 mills and what's going to happen, but
I would say that
the reserves that the city's 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 uh
prone to we have wildfire risk. We have
something that could catastrophic
problems. Um but the big one is usually
revenue variance and Whitefish as a
resort community doesn't really have a
lot as much revenue variance at least in
one year um 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 30% or
35% reserves. Um, how much we need is
probably as important as what projects
are being funded this year versus next
year. Um Dana makes a good point about
looking at the capital improvement plan
and trying to look at a timeline beyond
fiscal year 27 and how what it's going
to look like in 27 or 28. Um obviously
you have the risk management of what the
state's going to do with the um possibly
banning carryovers that failed last
legislative session pretty quickly. So
it may not be an imminent risk. Um, it
needs to be taken into account. Again, I
don't have a I'm not voting. So, you're
voting, but that's that's all I got.
Thanks.
>> Thank you, Michael. Ed,
» good evening. Ed Liser, 1355 Lion
Mountain Drive. Um, I wanted I I picked
up on something Dana said about um
hiring somebody to execute the CWPP
and having gone over that um thoroughly.
Um how we implement that is going to
require
somebody somebody that we don't have
right now. And you know, this is the
time of the year when, you know, we
think about Spokane and all those other
uh places that are um being affected by
wildfire and we are vulnerable. I'm I'm
telling you, as a fire behavior analyst
who spent a good portion of my career,
um that CWP
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 uh 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 um approve
resolutions 26-24
through 26-33. Is that an okay? motion
to make. Uh those are the
um resolution accepting and approving
municipal budget city of White Fish for
the 2027 fiscal year.
>> Thank you, Steve. Is there a second to
the motion?
>> Seconded by councelor Davis. Further
discussion.
>> Steve.
>> Yeah, I'll just I'll speak to my motion
first.
Um, I I know there's been a lot of uh
disagreement over what we should do with
the carryover mills. Um,
and I just want to bring up a couple
points uh 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 um when we got our our tax
valuation. Um talking talking about the 10 mil raise. So, I I think that the five mil raise is it's a compromise.
It's a middle ground. It keeps taxes
flat.
Um, if we look at what's going on in
this country, you know, everything is
up. Groceries are up 6%, health care,
depending on where you work, is up to
10%. And just in the city of Whitefish,
I think um Dana said it's up 5%.
Uh gas is up 10% anywhere from six to
10%. Utilities are up 20%.
We have mandatory increases in our trash
and water 3% 3 and a.5%.
And we have an opportunity to keep taxes
level with the current budget as it's
presented. And I think that um 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 10,000 or 30,000 feet
by increasing taxes more. I mean, we're
already increasing them from where we
were from our with our preliminary
budget, which would have been a tax a
tax decrease again. Um, by by increasing
taxes,
we are saying to the people of Whitefish
that the failures of the people in
Helena to um 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 DC,
to keep your to keep your cost of living
low.
We're come we're going to have to we're
coming at looking at this from the
perspective of okay, we're going to put
it on you as local residents on your
property taxes because
uh because we can't take we haven't
we've done a terrible job with
everything else. You know, if we didn't
if we weren't talking about, you know,
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, um,
so I think ultimately this the five mil
increase is a 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 um because people across the state
seem seem they're able to manage it. So,
uh, that's what I have to say about my
motion. Thank you, Steve. Further
discussion, Rebecca?
>> Yeah. Um, just point of clarification.
If I wanted to vote for the 10 mil
increase, do we um just vote no on this
motion and then come back?
>> There's a motion on the table for the 5%
mil carryover retention. And if that
motion fails, then I would reconsider a
second motion for
>> Okay.
>> discretion.
>> Um, and I would like to speak to Steve's
concern about um the cost to taxpayers.
Um it 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 from the preliminary
budget,
>> Rebecca has the seat.
>> But yeah, he was referencing the
preliminary budget which was um 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
accumulative. We are living in very very
expensive times. But um 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 um and get
what like what Ed said an expert to
manage our fire risk. I think it's worth
it um 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.
Um there's a million decisions that go
into this and I know this is a difficult
budget year but um I think the the
revenues the reserves the finances of
the city are very strong and I think
that um 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.
Um I I would make a comment on the the
that we've had over the last couple
weeks regarding a carry the concept of
carryover mills.
Um, I've been thinking about this pretty
hard and and um
I guess for me it it has some some
parallels to when a couple months ago we
voted on ambulance fees and in the in
the sense that there's two sides of the
ar a carryover mill there's two sides of
an argument. One is is a is a principal
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 we're taxing
raising tax revenue for citizens that we
don't have an identified need for. And I think I think that's true and I have a
hard time a very hard time with that
personally. Um but the other side of the
argument which is also very good is the
fact that we are
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 in the
state and um
you know the state may or may not remove
carryover mills which might reduce our
taxing authority going forward. So
there's 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 um the five mil
additional version of it. And I would
point out that
in my brain, I'm I quite honestly I'm a
very principal person. I sort of came
into this discussion feeling like we
should approve without the additional
mills. Um as on general principle, I
just have a very hard time with it. But
I do recognize the situation we're in. I
think the the version that is here feels
like a compromise to me. We have um five
additional mills every year. I would
point out that that does raise enough
funds to pay for basically everything
Dana just brought up um including the
wildfire um staff member um and then
some. And um and I think I would
personally have a very hard time very
hard time approving a budget with with
even more mills in that. Um and so I
think that I'm going to support what's
here. Um, 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,
um, the principle of it is is as far as
I can go and so um, I'm going to support
the current motion and, uh, and I'll be
happy with how we end up here. So,
thanks.
>> Thank you, Ben. Andy,
>> well, I think you guys all know what I'm
going to say. [laughter]
Um, I find 10 mills, quite frankly, a
compromised position knowing that we've
got 21.7 laying on the table right now.
Um, there's a part of me that says we
should grab all 21, but I realize that's
not realistic.
Um, as far as identified needs, I think
we have many of them. We had 20 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 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.
Regarded carryover mills, I agree with
Steve's argument in part that we kind of
don't know what the state's going to 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. But I
can't justify making a statement by only
raising five mills
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
mills 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. 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
cities 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 our firefighters go away and
we've got an empty station north of the
vioduct? That didn't serve our community
very well in my opinion. I guess I mean
and I understand the keeping flat and
I've 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. So
>> thank you Andy. Further comments? There
is a motion on the table to
>> Mayor, may I?
>> Oh, just happy. I'm sorry.
>> That's okay. I was uh waiting for
councelor Sweeney to say his piece, but
that's okay. Uh first of all, I want to
thank Dana Laney and all of the staff,
the tremendous amount of work that went
into producing this budget. So, I
resonate what the councelor Davis has
said to that to that point, producing
not only a budget, but also to keep the
city uh financially healthy along the
years. For the record, I'm comfortable
supporting the five mill compromise of
this budget. I still have reservations
about collecting
uh 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 a new motion later. I will
not support the 10 meals or anything
more than five meals. That's a
compromise that I can support uh within
this council. Finally, I 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, Jeppi. Further comments from
the council. There is a motion again on
the table. Motion by councelor Cornell,
seconded by councelor 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 councelor Cornell Calabiano
and Davis voting in favor. Councilors
Sweeney, Fury, and Norton voting in
opposition, and I'm going to 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 councelor 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 uh 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 do you need glasses? I've
got him.
I'm going to go ahead and call this
meeting back to order if folks don't
mind taking their seats.
And Jeppi, 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.
>> In fact, I'm sorry, Craig.
>> I was going to say I wrote it as one
staff report.
>> Okay. With individual. We have one staff
report and closed 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 storm
water master plan. And I'll turn it over
to our public works director, Greg
Workman. Thanks Greg.
>> Uh thank you and good evening. Um I'll
also note that Lizzy's here, our deputy
public works director and Allan who's
introduced himself already. So, if
there's questions I can't answer or
comments that um they would like to
address, I just um ask that they have
the floor if possible. Uh so, I I did do
a staff report for both resolutions. I'm
going to um minimize this because you
have quite a few pages of actual plan in
your packet. Um and I can see a number
of uh public that likely want to
comment. So, um I'll give you the
cliffnotes version of my staff report.
Uh 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 storm water
master plan.
Uh 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. Uh it's broken
into several sections with
recommendations. Uh water supply and
treatment is the first. Uh there are
four major recommendations uh including
the increased usage of Whitefish Lake
water uh for our supply. uh skated
controlled actuated valve installation
to manage consumption from Haskell
Creek. Uh continued investigation into
potential groundwater or other water
supply sources that will affect um or
less affected by climate factors and
taking continuing to take steps to
reduce water usage through conservation.
Um, in the water storage section, um,
there are, uh, five individual
recommendations,
uh, including the completion of the
South White Fish water capacity project,
which I will say is is well underway
with, um, the construction of the new
milliong tank and the water man in 18th
Street. Um, investigation of potential
leakage from the raw water reservoir at
the water plant. investigating valve
closures throughout uh the transmission
mains, electrical and instrument and
control uh improvements at the upper and
lower grouse tanks and the mountain
booster stations and tanks uh to allow
remote monitoring and control. Uh
there's also a system on distribution
system analysis
um which includes the reconstruction of
the Sunrest booster station
investigation of Wait a second.
Sorry, I think I duplicated some of
that. Um so the last section was um
water storage and distribution analysis
um which also includes the continuation
of our annual pipe replacement program.
Uh the wastewater and storm water master
plan um has a detailed overview of the
wastewater system
uh as well as the wastewater treatment
plant. I'm not going to go into all of
those re recommendations, but there are
seven recommendations for um the
wastewater treatment plant, three
recommendations on the wastewater
collection system,
um and four uh lift station capital
improvement projects.
Uh and finally, the storm water system.
um plan is part of that wastewater plan
uh 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 2634 and
35.
>> Thank you, Craig. Any questions for our
public works director or deputy director
or Alan Went who's here from AE2s?
Rebecca.
>> Yeah, Craig. Um, I'm just going through
the sheet that you left us about the um
the the public comments that we got and
um 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 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 te
telemetry placement be from where these
actuator valves are placed?
>> Um so the the the remote telemetry
project that's recommended um through
the public comment that we received
would be at the intakes themselves. So
up in the watershed at second and third
creeks um the actuated valve that we are
proposing and is a recommendation from
the master plan would be at the plant
itself at the essentially at the hydro
plant um just at the influent to the raw
water reservoir. So it would still use
um instrument and controls to run that
actuated valve u based on the level in
the raw water pond, but it wouldn't
require um the power source, the remote
telemetry and um the the valving up at
the intakes themselves.
>> How how far away is that te telemetry
site from where the reservoir is?
>> Uh like a long
>> feet. I don't know. It's It's over a
mile.
>> Oh, it's over a mile. Okay. And then um
the other thing that they said is that
there's a presumption that we're wasting
at least 30% of the water. Um but do we
at some point need to start accumulating
that data to see how much we are
actually spilling and letting go to
back?
>> We do have that data. Okay.
>> Um that that 30% is based on an annual
average. And so we spill a considerable
amount of water um during the higher
precipitation and higher runoff times of
the year. Um we don't spill much if any
water from the reservoir during you know
these low flow times.
>> Okay. And then um
you're recommending that the 2026
um water master plan
what that we actually evaluate how the
reservoir is leaking but you don't have
any plans for that currently. Correct.
>> Uh we don't have
we have money for it in the fiscal um 27
budget. Uh but we don't have anybody
lined up to do the actual tracer test.
Correct.
>> All right. And uh
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? Um, I guess I'd rather that
come up in public comment so the the
individual making that request could explain that.
>> Okay. And then the I guess this is just
a general question that I don't know is
when there's a lot lot in there about
what our water rights and the golf
courses water rights. Um, 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
breads 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 we have a right to take
the water from the state of Montana. Um,
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. Okay. All right. Thank you.
That's all for now.
>> We're we're a junior water right holder.
Um, the former Vorman Ranch is the
senior water right holder for that
basin. So unless there's a a call that's
made by the senior water right user
which I believe is Johnny Shocky now um
no
in answer to your question.
>> So John are you mayor Mofeld 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 um li we're not
liable in any way. Was that
>> 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
Second and Third 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 counselor. So please
respect the three minute rule. John,
» I'll try my best to keep it under three
minutes. Um, first of all, um, here on
behalf of the Haskell Bas and Watershed
Council,
you know that we are supporters of the
um 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 that
is has already been corrected and if so
I'm I apologize for that. When I was
last involved uh 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
um 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. Is that
seem correct to you folks,
>> Craig?
>> Uh 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, that thank you. Um
and I noticed it was 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 if you budgeted
potentially $100,000 to investigate
um further, it would be good to rewrite
that portion of the report simply to
show that 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 of the master
plan.
Um,
considering the number of minutes, I um
I'll race through a few things that um
I had wanted to say something about the community's dedication to 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. And having lived
here now 32 years, I've heard it over
and over and over that the community
really cares. Um, I was 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 I I
want to believe that. And um the new
community plan that you adopted just
recently
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, a
community overwhelmingly responded. The
top three most important features to
protect were the White Fish River, White
Fish Lake, and overall water quality.
And I guess that to me is is the most
important thing for me to say tonight.
I'm hoping that sentiment is still alive
and well. Um, it's obvious and I think
the evidence is obvious that that Second
Creek and Third Creek are being
dewatered um a lot sometimes for months
at a time. Um,
that's not that's just not consistent
with a community and a a city council or
a city entity that that believes
strongly in maintaining uh water
quality. If Um, you've got to have water quality. And if there's no
water in those creeks, um, 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 um
further facts about why we really need
the telemetry system and then we need to
um make sure that second and third creek
receive adequate water. So, I think my
three minutes were long past up. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, John. Appreciate it. Who's
next? Samantha.
» Good evening, honorable mayor and
council members. My name is Samantha
Tapenbeck. 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 wershed
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 in 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 second and third creek
creeks. Uh 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 Copel,
director of the White Fish Lake
Institute. We submitted written comments
for your review. I just want to touch
upon two main points tonight. Uh, number
one is that this is a really good
engineering report. In fact, your
engineering team of Craig, Lizzy, Allan
are awesome uh 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 uh scenario, right? 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 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 adequate adequately address
the whatifs right the plausible whatifs
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 in my mind, especially here
in Ed and and we all know what happened
in Spokane this year. And when that
happens, we can get hydrophobic soils,
we can get increased uh water yield,
sediment delivery, basically taking
those intake diversion structures
offline.
uh post that um there might be a taste
and odor issue making the water
unpalatable for municipal consumption.
Right. The other thing is um you know
we're doing our darn it darnest to keep
zebra and quaga muscles out of Whitefish
Lake, a very aggressive uh watercraft
inspection program. Thanks to you all
and Maria and Carla for doing a great
job on the ground. Um but there's no
guarantees, right? So what happens then?
So we could get uh zebra muscles
colonizing the water intake pipe
partially or totally oluding 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, you know, what management options
will you have to use as tools to
continue providing service to the
residents of Whitefish? So, uh, you
know, there's a couple things I
suggested. You know, Craig alluded to
the the groundwater wells, so I think
that that was that was me, right? So
I've advocated for potential deep
groundwater wells uh near the water
intake uh diversion structures right so
that water can be incorporated uh and
blended upstream right of the hydro
plant. 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, um 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, you know, um
not attaining that goal. So um it's a
great engineering plan. Again, great
people have worked on this. I'm just
saying let's pause. Let's go back to the
table. And again, this is a 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 honorable mayor and council
Richard Iner 104th Street Whitefish
Montana. Uh let me begin by saying
Samantha I really appreciate your
comments. I think you um hit the nail on
the head as it were. Uh couple of
things. Uh, one is, uh, we have the
technology, we have I sounded like in
the budget the money to, um, put a
impermeable mat in the reservoir and get
rid of or eliminate that leakage, uh, in
our reservoir. And so, uh, if there's
money, we should spend it on that and
get that job done. Two, uh, remote
telemetry, uh, is a pro proven
technology. We've been discussing it
with regards to Haskell Basin for quite
some time and uh I think now is the time
to initiate that uh program. Um 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 repairarian habitat including the
cutthroat trout that might live in it.
Um and I I think that it is uh important
that we keep stream flow uh in second
and third
creeks and a telemetry system would go a
long ways towards getting that done.
Number four, uh 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 stop talking and um
start acting. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Richard. Ed,
» if you don't mind, Alan, after Ed
Liser, 1355 Lion Mountain Drive. Um, 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 um I' I'd
like to basically reiterate u some of
what's been said already. And I think I
would take Richard's comment right at
the end very seriously. Do we have the
right to alter an ecosystem?
You know, I appreciate the comments that
and the hearing that you had on the
budget and it it makes me appreciate the
challenge and that you have trying to
fiscally manage this very important
resource that you know and for the for
the good of the public. But
um there's a cost to living here and I 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 the cost of living here. So,
um, again, I want to reiterate what's
been said. I support the
concept of the telemetry, um, system. I
hope you'll seriously consider that um,
in the review of the master plan. Thank
you so much.
» Thank you, Ed Allen.
>> Thanks again for letting me speak before
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 in a kind of
a tight box. But I want to talk about
the water master plan itself. We talk
about a 20-year planning horizon. Those
elements are not set in stone for 20
years. Uh every year the city will come
back and they'll look at the CIPs 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 or they could come along
and they could say we need to do an
update uh to this plan in two years or
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. Uh we typ
typically call it draft because they're
never finalized. Um that said, moving
on, I think people need to understand
the cost of
using less Haskell Creek water. Uh
you're going to lose
uh revenue from the hydro plant. If
you've got to pump it back up the hill,
you've got to pay those charges. Uh 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
require more chemicals yet. You're going
to have more backwash. A lot of cost
associated with those and I don't think
people realize what that's going to be.
Um, 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 and it
unfortunately is going to come down to
an economic analysis.
Do you have the the economic fortitude
to uh quit using Haskell Creek water or
use less Haskell Creek water. Um, and
you know, the initial numbers I'm
looking at aren't very promising for the
city. It's going to be a tough pill to
swallow. Um, a few other things to talk
about here. Uh, wells. 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 a big amount of water that they've
drilled a couple of dry holes in the
last 10 years. Um, but if you could, um,
that's an excellent source and you've
got it above the treatment plant. So
hopefully you're not pumping far. There
are water chemistry issues whether you
use it for potable water and and you'd
have to add on or build a separate
treatment plant before you blend it with
your existing surface water. Um or
potentially you could use it to augment
Haskell Creek itself. Um that has some
inherent advantages and disadvantages.
You got a water chemistry issue again.
Um but it is cold water and could help
offset the warming of of the creek
itself.
Uh, I do want to acknowledge the the
fantastic work that Haskell Basin
Commission has done, the conservation
district has done through the years with
Haskell Creek. When I was a kid, it it
was a cow pond from one end to the other
through Borman's and they've done an
outstanding job of revitating,
reforesting. Um, so this is this is a
tough decision. Um, I've been tasked
looking at it 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 Jeppi since he
is joining us remotely. Any comments,
Jeppy?
>> Uh, 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. Uh, 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. Uh,
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 uh valve at the hydrop plant
regulates how much total water reaches
the plant but it doesn't tell us how
much water remains in second and third
creek or uh allow us to remotely adjust
those individual diversions where on the
other side this telemetry proposal would
uh do that. Am I correct or is and and
what what is it that makes your approach
comfortable for yourself and and the
staff in the city?
» Yeah, I think you've explained it
correctly, Jeppe. Um 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 it wouldn't the
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. Um I I
will say that over the past several
years, we have continued to allow water
to overflow at 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. Um but the intent of the actuated
valve would be would essentially
accomplish the same goal as the remote
telemetry and the the gate valves at
second and third creek. It's just that
it would back up the water into first
creek and then meet up with um with the
main stem of Haskell
shortly thereafter. Um, I will say,
Rebecca, in answer to your question
earlier, I did a just a quick GIS
measurement. Um, the intake for Third
Creek is just over two miles from the
water plant. Um, it would likely the
signal would likely have to take a
slightly different route. So, I would
estimate between two and three miles of
um of distance in that remote telemetry.
>> Thank you, Greg. So, so are you saying
that the telemetry solution would
address the issue so to speak at its
head versus at the feet? I'm I'm
paraphrasing, but there are technical
challenges and costs that I don't know
they 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 I guess so. I don't know if it's
necessarily a head versus feet. I mean,
we we're 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 it wouldn't all
come out of second and third creeks. It
would go back to First Creek.
O okay and uh and the other solution the
remote solution will change that as a a
structural change. Correct. So we're
making a choice of where to divert or
keep the water. It's not just a techn
technological choice. Am I understanding
correctly? That
>> that's a fair statement. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks Jeppi. We'll start with Ben and
then Rebecca.
I do have also one or two questions if I
could. Um,
and sorry if I'm a bit of a layman in
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
whenever we would call that
creek. Thank you. And then um
so when we talk about dewater like but
the first creek we don't use. So there's
always water coming through through
first grade essentially. So when so when
we're talking about dewatering
what we're actually talking about is the
distance from the intake to Haskell
Creek itself that that little stretch.
It's not Haskell Creek doesn't get
dewatered because 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 six.
>> 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 I pulled up the map which is
actually in the packet
on page 264 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
here. Am I understanding this correctly?
Okay.
» Okay.
Unless I've said something wrong, we can
move forward then. Okay. Um, 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? Um, 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 it won't be um an
inexpensive alternative and there is
risk uh to mixing groundwater with
surface water. Um Allan mentioned
briefly the opportunity perhaps to have
a well at the intake that pumps directly
into the creek um 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. Um but I do think it is
it's worth continued exploration.
>> Sure.
>> And what would you think the next steps
would be in that in that regard?
Uh, I'm most likely probably drilling
some um, 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.
>> Um, 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,
um, I think we should consider.
>> I think we should, too.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks, ma'am. Rebecca,
>> um, could could you comment on Barnes.
Um
she's saying there was a CRE Cat
um climate resilience evaluation and
awareness tool that she didn't think was
included in this and um but it 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 if
how we would add that if this got
adopted tonight.
>> Um yeah, so we did that climate
resiliency study um through money uh
that was provided by EPA back in I think
2022.
>> Um that report had three main findings.
Um, one was the remote telemetry. Um,
we're, you know, somehow monitoring flow
from Haskell that's in this master plan.
Um, one I believe was the increased
water storage which is in this master
plan. And then there was a third um I'm
sorry, one was the emergency wild uh
fire response plan which we're working
on. And then there was a third which was
fireproofing a building up at the the
water plant. um which is a fairly
minimal project. It was estimated about
$3,000 back in 2022. Um we haven't
completed that yet, but it's typically
not something you'd see in a a plan of
this scale. It's essentially taking a
building that houses existing controls
and switching it from a a woodframe
building to a cinder block building.
>> So kind of minor in scale. Okay.
>> Okay. So,
>> it wouldn't take much to reference this
plan um this 22 climate resiliency
evaluation and awareness tool. Um 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 um 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 if it
perpetually was brought up like what's
been going on? Like is it just that we
have such a strong need to provide water
that we don't that we're prioritizing
that versus this complaint that we're
dewatering downstream
and it doesn't seem to affect us as a
city
like it's a big complex
>> like 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.
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
um proceeding with with remote
telemetry. Uh that said, we have
direction from council to continue to
evaluate the remote telemetry and come
up with a a more accurate cost estimate.
So we will continue to do that.
>> Okay. 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 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
followup on what they're saying. Is that
right?
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> I would entertain a motion.
» Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the plan as
presented. Would that be for resolutions
26,34 and 35?
>> Affirmative.
>> Is there a second to the motion?
>> Seconded by councelor Davis. Further
discussion.
>> Yes. Uh Mr. Mayor, as I said, um this is
not a plan that is cast in marble and uh
I I'm okay. I'm I'm um satisfied with
the current presentation.
Um
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 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 Jeppi. 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 20
27 through FY31
CIP. Laney,
>> good evening again council and mayor. Um
we are presenting here the five-year
capital improvements plan also referred
to as the CIP for fiscal years 27 2027
through 2031. This plan document
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 uh seasonal uh population.
This document outlines the uses of the
program in 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 5
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 uh which I believe is
page 667 in your um 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 with
each within each department.
Um page 668 of the packet
um 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 cert uh
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,
um 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% [snorts]
of the 3% reserve 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 27.
Prior years prior year or year's
expenditures for projects are reflected
where applicable as well as anticipated
costs 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 Laney. Any questions for Laney or
>> May may I
>> Jeppi?
>> Yes. Boy, lots of work on the numbers.
Good. Uh Laney, first of all, thank you.
Very good report. Uh 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 CIB 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 CIP is your planning document.
>> Perfect. Thank you. Now I in in the plan
uh how are the project ranked? Say that
the some revenue or some grant funding
comes short or below expectation. How do
we decide what gets defaed uh or or
prioritized?
Yeah, I think I'm going to say that you
know the recommendations come from the
departmental staff first um and then in
the process of doing the budget um that
is like that will then incorporate um uh
city manager approval and um and you
know discussion and then it goes before
the city council.
So, so the the plan doesn't have a
guideline criteria set for uh
prioritizing projects um if the funds
are not available or if we need to get
into more debt or increase taxes.
Yeah, that's 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 that
it's very detailed as you said is there
any project that today has no identified
funding sources and would might require
additional taxes debt or rate increases as well
>> I'd say that every project that we have
has a is earmarked with a particular
funding source um or or combination
thereof of so um in some cases we're
using like landwater conservation grant
monies and then we um sometimes
subsidize the project with resort tax
dollars if it's an a resort tax
applicable project. So it just um but
everything that is in the fisc year 27
component of the CIP um is funded.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I have one last
question. Um,
since tonight the council approved a
substantially higher tax levy, does that
approval uh, which you did not have
because the proposed budget had a plus
five meals carryover and we captured
plus 10 mills carryover. And if I make
my math correctly, uh, we have increased
the tax revenue from 31.8% 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
your um the plan. Um I think that it
gives you latitude to make other
decisions.
>> Thank you.
>> Throughout the course of the fiscal
year. Do I have
>> Thank you.
>> Any questions for Laney or staff for
that matter?
>> Please.
>> I move I move to uh
I'm sorry. Adopt the fiscal year 27 f to
fisc year 31 capital improvement program
as presented by our wonderful finance
director.
>> Second. Seconded by councelor Sweeney.
Further discussion. All those in favor,
please raise your hand. Those opposed
like S. That motion does carry
unanimously. Thanks very much, Laney. I
know you work very diligently on the on
the plan. It's much appreciated. You
have Dana's report and close with the
packet. Any questions for our city
manager?
Dana, anything additional to report on?
>> I do. I have a couple things. Um, I'll
keep them brief. Just first a reminder,
next meeting is on a Tuesday, September
8th, due to the um Labor Day holiday. Um
let's talk about the CWPP for a second.
Um the um agreement with SWCA um 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 um certain comments where they
see um applicable um into the draft
plan. Our intent will be to bring that
to city council at a work session to
review um 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 um I am asking council if you're okay
for me signing a contract amendment. Um
the total cost um because we had
feedback on the difficult the difficult
readability of the plan. It's very
technical. There's a lot of pages.
because it's a very large document. Um,
with updating the executive summary u
with the 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' be a standalone part of the
document. It pulls out basically the
homeowner uh to-dos. Um, and then
participation in the work session. Um,
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 80 $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, um the executive
summary change, uh 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,
um I just want to get some feedback on
you on that. Uh usually I I can amend
contracts within 10%. This would be a
little bit higher than that.
» Yeah, I I think it's necessary. I think
it 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 a outreach and um 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. Um, and then
also on CWPP um and growth policy. Um,
thanks to Allan. I had sent him a link
to a grant that I saw that came up. Um,
he only had like a week maybe to get it
done. We were successful in um getting
uh being selected to participate with
the SEPAW uh program. It's the community
planning assistance for wildfire
uh program. It's one year of technical
assistance. They will be completing an
audit of our land use um our current
policies, our capacity and development
code. Um 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 going to 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 uh, you know, check
off one of the recommendations within
the CW BP right now. So, that's
exciting. They've helped um a lot of
communities in Colorado, Hawaii,
Missoula County, and Big Sky locally.
So, um, last update I have is the, uh,
North White Fish Lake Community Fire
Association.
um if you recall, they're the group that
we're working with to apply for the DNRC
easement. Um I anticipate bringing anou
update forward to council within the
next um month or so. Uh we worked with
DNRC. I think we have a path forward. I
was at a meeting on Saturday um at their
house where they brought in um residents
from Rest Haven, from um Iron Horse were
there to really and even just their
surrounding neighborhood to try to see
how this location and working together
with Iron Horse could help really uh
create a good fire network. And so, um
it was all very positive at that
meeting, but I just want to let you know
you'll see that update come forward and
they're getting prepared to uh for us to
help them with that application process
here soon. Um, 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 to for tax fund to purchase 1974
and 1982 Whitefish Avenue to construct
two town homes. Dana.
>> All right. You have my staff report in
the packet. I'm not going to cover
everything in that. Um, as you know, uh,
earlier this year, we approved or the
city council approved $250,000 to
support the purchase of, I believe it
was 1966
and something else, uh, the neighboring
property. Um, 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. Um, it is a little bit larger
lot. Um so it will provide two town
homes but also um park park space for
those four town homes. What would be
four town homes? Um they still have the
same um requirements within the
agreement that's been drafted to require
restriction of ownership um with incomes
at or below 80% area median income. Um
two-year completion of the project.
Annual progress reports from Habitat. um
the shared appreciation allowing the
homeowner to um capture 25% of the
appreciated value at the time of sale
and the city's ability to audit the
financial records of the project. Um
they have reviewed the agreement as well
and um are prepared to sign with your
approval. The fiscal year 2027
um resort tax budget does have
appropriations available for this type
of project. Um, 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. Um, when
you account for other committed funds
already, we do have um $814,000
available for pro programs and projects
for uh fiscal year 27. And so, the
$250,000 is easily uh fit within the
current budget. We support uh this staff
supports this request um 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 uh award the grant
or the request to purchase those two
lots for $250,000 to Habitat for
Humanity.
>> Is there
seconded by councelor Calabiano? further
discussion.
» I just wanted to say thank you to Mr.
Brett Campbell because he gave us the um
the law 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 th 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. In my
opinion, I think this is exactly what
the citizens were expecting when they
authorized um this affordable housing
fund. So, um I appreciate that you're
here and that you stuck around, Mary
Beth, through uh our our budget
discussion. I'm sure that was
enlightening. Um and in the event, um I
appreciate the work you're doing and
please uh please proceed. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Mary Beth. All those in favor of
the motion, please raise your hand.
opposed
likes on and that is unanimous.
Michelle, you do. Thank you, Mary Beth,
very much. Uh, 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 Bridger? It
was at the foot bridge and it got taken
down for repairs and I thought maybe you
had just taken it and I so I called to
say we need it and Jenny said that um
that it was possibly hit by an electric
bike and so uh I just wonder are we
doing any is there anything else we can
do to keep people safe on the trails?
Um, I just don't know if we should like
he's calling for signage. Um, 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 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.
uh when you deal with bicycles and
electric assist bicycles, it's a little
bit more difficult. I think the law
referenced electric scooters is clear
and as we gear up enforcement of those,
determining whether or not they're
self-propelled or electrically
powered um 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 um and I think
the legislation will take this up again,
especially with classifying electric
bicycles hopefully um in that next
legislation, but I think our current
ordinance covers that. State law covers
that and we'll continue to work with
parks and wreck. Um I was not aware of
the trash can being hit. I don't think
that was reported uh to the police
department, but um if you see trouble
areas or places that we could point our
enforcement to, that would be helpful.
Just one thing quickly. Is it possible
to push uh 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? Uh we do have a wayfinding
um 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
going to move on to adjournment. We'll
start with councelor comments. Jeppi,
thanks for joining us remotely and be
safe out there. Any comments this
evening?
>> Yes. Uh my pleasure and uh 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. Um, before we adjourn, I
just wanted to encourage everyone to
join us on September 11 at 11:00 a.m. at
the Emergency Services Center for the
unveiling of phase one of our 9 911
memorial. I'm sure we all read Dana's
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, honored 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, for our country.
I hope to see many members of our
community there and in the future
supporting those uh um actions. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Jeppi. Steve,
>> thanks Mayor. Yeah, thanks Jeppe. I will
not be able to attend. I will be
actually in school teaching uh students
who were born in um 2012 about September
11th. Um just one quick question for uh
for Craig. North Carol
uh the weeds are pretty much out of
control there. Is anybody has that been
addressed?
Are you talking about in behind white
fish yards or
>> Yeah, behind their the weeds the that
whole hillside is covered in noxious
weeds.
>> Okay. So,
>> yeah, I think that really becomes a code
enforcement issue, but we can we can
work with that property owner. I
actually don't know who the property
owner is currently.
>> 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 pretty bad.
>> Okay. Uh, thank you. Um, that's all I
have tonight. Thanks.
>> Thanks, Steve. Frank,
I just want to give a a big shout out to
the Wave and Carrie Jacobs in particular
who runs the swimming program at 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 when or or Sunday,
whenever it was. We unfortunately were
unable to hold the activity or the race
per se because of the air quality was so
bad uh that we weren't authorized to do
that. Um but uh since the volunteers
were there and the buoys were set um the
public was allowed to take advantage of
that uh 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 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
Meld 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. And 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 glad we can
um constructively work towards the best
answer at least for the majority. So um
all good and um and I and I and I do
mean the budget was well done. So um
thank you staff. Um I did on the budget
I would also make the comment that um
one of these days I would love to think
about how we present the budget. So like
I've said this before and I apologize
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 um I think could be
improved. I'd love to help work on that
if I could. Um
my second comment would be um I I
at some point or tell me where or how to
follow up on the exploratory wells for
water wildfire resilience. I I do think
that the risk of of us losing our drinking
water in Haskell Creek is real in my
opinion for at least some period of time
and so um I think it would behoove us to
you know advance that concept forward if
it makes sense and if everybody agrees.
So,
um, and then the last comment I had is
just on the the deed restrictions with
Habitat. I I did send you an email,
Dana. Um, 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 um as we're providing these
funds to to Habitat
um and the land trust that we're covered
in the event that either one of those
organizations were to fail for some
reason and if if that we don't lose our
affordable housing stock. So, however,
um, if you could just help us make sure
that that happens, I appreciate that.
That's all my com.
>> Thank you, Ben. Rebecca,
>> no comment.
>> Thank you, Rebecca. Andy,
>> quickly again, thanks to staff and
everybody up here after going through
yet another budget season and think it's
only seven and a half months before we
get to start again. So, there
>> um, quick shout out to Lizzie and Craig
for being 83% of the capital improvement
budget. I think that's [laughter]
thinks that that's worthy a note. Um,
quick question for Craig. I've had a
couple of people call me and ask about
the exterior
H2O insurance, waterline insurance, a
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. People were like,
"What? What do I do this? Do I not? Do
I?"
>> Although I I will say that the initial
launch has not been very smooth. That's
what I was.
>> 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. Um, I've relayed
all of this to our main um,
correspondent at home serve and I
haven't had any response from him. Um, I
will say that I believe MMIA endorsed
this. No, the League of Cities, excuse
me. Um, National League of Cities
endorsed um, this insurance company. And
so, um, we're still in the learning
phase, but it is my understanding that
for 70ome dollars a year, they will
ensure your water service from where the
city's responsibility stops at the curb
stop to your house.
>> Up to $12,000.
>> Sorry, that was small print. [laughter]
of eligible costs probably would be my
guess. [laughter]
>> There's a little copy of it. Um, other
than that, just happy be safe out there
and up there and we look forward to
seeing you back here warming your chair
up soon.
>> Thanks, Andy. Um, 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,
Allan, thanks for coming tonight and
your work on the water and wastewater
sewer plans, etc., etc. Appreciate your
input as always, and that was an
excellent report. It's a 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.