[3:02] going to go ahead and call this August

[3:04] 17th, 2026 meeting of the Whitefish City

[3:07] Council to order. Thanks everyone for

[3:09] attending in person. We also have some

[3:12] folks joining remotely via Zoom,

[3:15] including Councelor Kalabiano, who is on

[3:18] fire duty. and thank you for joining us

[3:21] tonight. Uh just be remotely I

[3:23] appreciate it. We will start with our

[3:25] pledge of allegiance and Mike Copel. Do

[3:27] you mind leading us?

[3:45] liberty for all.

[3:51] » Thank you, Mike. We'll move on to

[3:53] communications from the public. We do

[3:55] have our FY27 budget on the agenda for

[3:59] this evening, which is advertised as a

[4:00] public hearing in addition to the tax

[4:02] levy and assessments, which we will take

[4:05] as one public hearing if that's okay

[4:07] with our city manager. Um, otherwise,

[4:10] anything you'd like to bring to the

[4:11] attention of the council that's either

[4:12] on the agenda or otherwise, and now

[4:15] would be your opportunity. Name

[4:17] addressed for the record, please. Toby,

[4:23] » I just have a request of you

[4:27] and that is to request of the middle

[4:30] school perhaps a uh

[4:34] educational moment for the students

[4:36] there regarding riding bicycles

[4:40] and pedestrians especially electric or

[4:43] motorized bikes and things like that.

[4:46] You know, it's summertime and the kids

[4:47] are off and they're just crazy going

[4:49] everywhere. And I've seen kids ride

[4:52] electric bicycles right down the

[4:54] sidewalk. I mean, in town, not on

[4:58] Central Avenue, but I have seen it on

[5:00] other avenues. And uh it might be

[5:03] something that the city should ask the

[5:05] middle school to either draw up a paper

[5:07] on regulations and proper conduct on a

[5:11] bicycle

[5:12] in within the city. That's all.

[5:16] Thank you, Toby.

[5:18] Ma'am,

[5:22] » hello. My name is Marcela Williams and

[5:24] I'm a resident here in Whitefish

[5:26] and I'm also raising young adults who I

[5:29] would really like to be able to move

[5:31] back here one day. Uh, and I am asking

[5:34] that we allocate $250,000

[5:36] uh of our resort tax towards Habitat for

[5:39] Humanity. Um, they have a proven track

[5:41] record of success here in the valley. uh

[5:45] not just in Whitefish but also in uh Sea

[5:47] Falls as well as Kalispell and they have

[5:50] their foot on the gas here right now as

[5:52] we speak breaking ground tomorrow which

[5:54] is super exciting and I know that

[5:57] there's room for expansion right there.

[6:00] So I would just like to put it out there

[6:02] that housing is one of the biggest

[6:04] problems that we have in the valley. Uh,

[6:07] and uh, we have to be able to support

[6:10] our teachers and our first responders

[6:12] and and and people that really want to

[6:15] live and work here, including food and

[6:18] beverage as well. And I know that

[6:19] restaurants suffered all summer because

[6:21] they couldn't find people to work. And

[6:24] the number one reason why is because

[6:25] they didn't have housing. So, not only

[6:28] do we um reduce risk of injury because

[6:31] they're not having to travel as far, but

[6:32] we also um work to keep people in the

[6:35] valley that want to live and work here.

[6:38] So, I'm just asking that you consider

[6:40] allocating another 250,000. They could

[6:43] put it to use right away and build at

[6:45] least two more homes, which that's two

[6:47] more families. That's children that

[6:49] would grow up here and and they would

[6:52] really thrive right here in this

[6:54] community. So, please consider it and

[6:56] thank you very much.

[6:59] >> Thanks, Miss Williams.

[7:03] » Jamie.

[7:04] >> Hello. I'm Jamie Goen. I too am a

[7:06] resident of Whitefish and I would like

[7:09] to say that everything Marcelo Williams

[7:11] just said verbatim ditto. Speaking as an

[7:14] employer, uh, this has been very real

[7:17] and

[7:19] seeing housing go up and is very

[7:21] exciting and I think the town is very

[7:23] excited. I'm really excited that we got

[7:25] your blessing last for the last year's

[7:28] uh allocation to build on White Fish

[7:30] Avenue which is breaking ground tomorrow

[7:32] in a meaningful way. And so just wanted

[7:35] to say thanks. This is really really

[7:37] great. I've really enjoyed this

[7:39] experience working with you guys. The

[7:41] other only other thing I'd like to bring

[7:42] up is along Edgewood Avenue uh at the

[7:44] stop signs of Dakota and Iowa uh the

[7:48] grasses are very tall and sometimes the

[7:51] people are very short and They're

[7:53] walking and then they're about to

[7:55] they're on the crosswalk. I worry

[7:58] because a lot of people don't really

[7:59] stop. They just kind of touch and roll.

[8:02] So, just as a public safety concern, I'd

[8:05] just love to see some of those hedges

[8:06] cut back a little ways so that as people

[8:08] are walking, we see them in time to stop

[8:11] before they hit the crosswalk. Thank you

[8:13] very much.

[8:14] >> Thank you, Jamie.

[8:16] Alan.

[8:21] Hi, I'm Alan Went. I'm an engineer with

[8:23] AE2S here in support of the water master

[8:26] plan tonight. Um, I'm responsible for

[8:28] the plan and I just wanted to talk a

[8:30] little bit about the process we went

[8:32] through. Um, there were a number of

[8:35] alternatives that we considered. Not all

[8:37] of them made it. Uh, the numbers

[8:39] actually got quite large and daunting

[8:42] once you start looking at the cost of a

[8:44] lot of these public infrastructure type

[8:46] product projects. Um, there are number

[8:50] of projects that are right on the cusp

[8:52] and and didn't make it, but I'm sure

[8:54] they'll be on it in coming years. I will

[8:58] be available throughout this meeting

[9:01] should you guys have any questions for

[9:02] me.

[9:04] >> Thank you, Alan. Appreciate it. We'll

[9:06] address you if needed during the budget

[9:08] deliberations. Cameron

[9:10] >> Cameron Blake, 825 Lexan Trail in

[9:13] Whitefish. And I'm also here to support

[9:15] Habitat for Humanity's request for the

[9:17] 250,000 for two more homes on White Fish

[9:20] Avenue. Um the we're actually digging

[9:23] for the foundation tomorrow. So, sorry

[9:26] we broke ground, but the foundation is

[9:28] starting to go excavation for the

[9:30] foundation is going in. Um I think Jamie

[9:32] and Marcela have covered a lot of the

[9:34] needs and you guys know this, but

[9:36] Habitat, I mean, it's a tangible, it's a

[9:37] fraction of what's needed, but it's a

[9:39] tangible start. Um the four homes if we

[9:42] improve the two more will be in place

[9:44] families in them by middle of next year

[9:46] which is starting to solve the problem.

[9:49] A long way to go. Uh I just wanted to

[9:51] add that we're seeing incredible

[9:53] community support. As you guys know, the

[9:54] Great Fish Challenge is underway and

[9:56] Habitat's been um we're over 100,000

[9:58] raised from the community and 140

[10:00] donors. So there's widespread community

[10:02] support for what we're doing um and have

[10:04] incredible momentum as they commented. I

[10:06] want to make a suggestion that I know on

[10:09] White Fish Avenue we're still waiting

[10:10] for permits and I guess we can excavate

[10:12] without permits so we're moving forward

[10:14] but it's a everything has really slowed

[10:16] down is my understanding with permitting

[10:18] and if there's any way the city could

[10:20] prioritize permitting for affordable

[10:23] ownership housing I think that would

[10:24] help to speed up what's solving the

[10:27] problem a bit you know even if it's a

[10:29] month or two here or there. So, I don't

[10:31] know if there's anything that can be

[10:32] done there, but that's a suggestion

[10:34] towards a solution. Thank you.

[10:38] >> Thank you, Cameron. Further public

[10:40] comment, Richard,

[10:45] » mayor, counselors, Richard Iner, 104th

[10:47] Street. I just want to thank um Dana and

[10:50] whoever else might have been involved in

[10:53] extending the public comment period for

[10:55] the CWP draft. uh two weeks was really

[11:00] short and hard to meet and thanks for

[11:02] extending that a week and I think

[11:04] hopefully that you got more comments and better information. Um but what I'm

[11:09] also interested in is what are the next

[11:12] steps and what are the timelines for

[11:14] those next steps in the next part of the

[11:17] CWP. I also want to say that I support

[11:20] Habitat's request for that $250,000.

[11:23] They're they're right at they're out of

[11:26] the gate and down the track and we

[11:28] should do everything we can to keep them

[11:30] going at full speed. Thank you.

[11:34] >> Thank you, Richard.

[11:36] >> Further public comment this evening.

[11:47] » Hello,

[11:49] I'm Carolyn Pitman. I live at One Tides

[11:51] Way Whitefish. I came into Whitefish 49

[11:55] years ago this week. And it's been my

[11:57] privilege to work here, live here, and

[12:00] raise my family here. And many of you

[12:03] are doing the same thing. I think that

[12:05] we have an opportunity now to offer that

[12:08] same privilege to other people, people

[12:10] who can live here and work here. And we

[12:13] can do that through Habitat for

[12:14] Humanity. We have the opportunity to

[12:17] purchase another lot for two more homes.

[12:20] This makes four. It seems small, but

[12:23] there is an energy and an enthusiasm

[12:26] about this project and this endeavor

[12:28] that reminds me of the many, many

[12:32] projects that have been successful in

[12:34] this community. So, I urge you to buy

[12:37] the lot. Thank you.

[12:42] » Thank you, Carolyn.

[12:49] » Hello, Matthew.

[12:52] resil

[12:57] management plan. Um, this plan

[13:01] recommends Scott and telemetry

[13:02] improvements at Grass Mountain facility

[13:05] because real-time monitoring would allow

[13:08] city staff to manage those facilities

[13:10] more efficiently and respond to problems

[13:12] quickly. at Grass Mountain. The plan

[13:14] specifically notes currently staff have

[13:17] to travel to the facility and manually

[13:19] check that equipment and record

[13:21] operation conditions. I would encourage

[13:23] the council to please apply that same

[13:26] standard to Haskell Basin. In fact, the

[13:29] need is arguably greater at second and

[13:32] third creek diversions. These facilities

[13:34] are miles into the backcountry

[13:36] mountains. During the winter, they

[13:38] require over snow travel on unmaintained

[13:41] roads. consumes staff time and also

[13:44] introduces city staff to very real

[13:46] safety considerations. Uh I've done

[13:49] backcountry snow survey work with the

[13:50] USDA. I'm quite familiar with tracked

[13:53] vehicles in backcountry settings and

[13:55] those risks. Uh the telemetry would

[13:58] eliminate the need for staff to inspect

[14:00] and maintain these facilities. It would

[14:03] not, but it would eliminate the

[14:05] unnecessary trips if they're going up on

[14:07] a monthly basis to check on these

[14:09] facilities through the winter months in

[14:11] particular. But throughout the year,

[14:13] there's an opportunity there to be more

[14:15] responsive to current conditions.

[14:17] Um, these real time monitoring flows

[14:21] would allow the city

[14:23] uh how to actually know how much water

[14:26] is being diverted currently and how much

[14:28] remains in those streams. The

[14:30] information the draft

[14:33] reports acknowledges that there's not

[14:35] well documented understanding of what

[14:37] actually flows in those creeks and what

[14:39] we're what we're drawing out of those.

[14:41] This approach would also directly be

[14:44] consistent with the city's climate

[14:45] action plan which calls for protecting

[14:48] those municipal wersheds and maintaining

[14:50] strong monitoring programs to manage and

[14:53] adapt to changing climate conditions.

[14:56] The draft already recognizes the value

[14:58] of modern remote monitoring elsewhere in

[15:01] the city's water system. I'm asking the

[15:04] council to apply that same standard to

[15:06] Haskell and those tributaries ensuring

[15:10] telemetry and real time flow monitoring

[15:12] at second and third creek diversions are

[15:14] included in the water facility

[15:16] management plan. Thank you.

[15:19] >> Thank you, Matthew. I should have

[15:21] indicated that that is scheduled for a

[15:23] public hearing, but we'll take your

[15:25] comments on the record during

[15:27] communications. So, thank you very much.

[15:29] Any further comments from the public?

[15:32] Any volunteer board reports,

[15:37] sir.

[15:41] » Evening, Ryan Walther. I'm the chair of

[15:44] the climate action plan committee. Um,

[15:48] thank you for uh

[15:51] commissioning the drafting of the CWP.

[15:54] It is a very important document. I think

[15:56] you know anybody tracking the news

[15:59] um can see how catastrophic a fire could be to the culture, the community,

[16:05] the economy here. Um I echo Richard's

[16:10] comments on extending and gratitude for

[16:13] extending the comment period. Um,

[16:17] I think the

[16:20] uh the process from now um is to

[16:24] incorporate comments, review how those

[16:26] comments have been incorporated

[16:28] um and to share with the public once

[16:31] again. I look forward to that and so

[16:33] does the rest of the committee. Um, I

[16:36] think there was a bit of news recently

[16:39] um from Sanders County that showed that

[16:42] um the BNSF train caused a small fire

[16:45] there which was thankfully put out. Um,

[16:49] I think that goes to show the importance

[16:52] of uh crossing our tees and dotting our

[16:55] eyes on this report. Uh, and again,

[16:58] thanks for your attention to that issue.

[17:02] and I look forward to reviewing the next

[17:06] version. Thanks.

[17:09] >> Thank you, Ryan, and for your service on

[17:11] the committee.

[17:13] Further volunteer board reports from the

[17:15] audience.

[17:17] Michelle, anyone online? That be

[17:22] council

[17:23] Frank? I have one uh an update from the

[17:26] park board and something I think is

[17:29] incredibly important for this group as

[17:32] well as um all the public. There's been

[17:35] a request uh for a proposal for a stage,

[17:39] a permanent stage of some size at depot

[17:42] park. Um and given the history of the

[17:46] formation of that park and how we put it

[17:48] together, um the parkboard fence since

[17:51] there's been a pretty significant uh

[17:53] press for it, there is some public

[17:56] support for it. We've decided to take it

[17:58] under or the parkour is uh directed uh

[18:02] that we do an actual

[18:04] scientific survey of the public to see

[18:07] if we can't figure out what we should

[18:08] really be doing, whether we should even

[18:10] be considering. um putting a permanent

[18:14] park uh stage structure in the park. Um

[18:18] there's going to be a uh uh community engagement u meeting September

[18:25] 16th at 6 o'clock uh at city hall. Um

[18:29] and I encourage any and all of us to

[18:32] attend um and see what what's being said

[18:35] because it's I think it's it's a

[18:37] significant enough uh request and to how

[18:41] the park is being operated now

[18:45] that I think we really ought to be

[18:46] paying attention.

[18:48] Thank you.

[18:51] >> My only comment to that, if I may, is I

[18:54] think the time has come for us to

[18:56] consider a permanent band stand and I

[18:58] think it's all about

[19:00] scale in relation to the park because

[19:03] there's enough demand for that and like

[19:06] our trails etc. We either manage it or

[19:09] we don't. I think it's time to manage

[19:12] live music in the park, which I think

[19:14] would be a significant benefit to this

[19:16] community. I think the public comments

[19:18] going to come out resoundingly in favor.

[19:21] With that said,

[19:23] >> and that's the reason we're doing it.

[19:24] Thank you.

[19:26] >> Further volunteer board reports.

[19:28] Rebecca,

[19:30] >> yeah, just the climate action committee

[19:32] met. Um Ryan mentioned that we reviewed

[19:35] the wildfire plan.

[19:37] There's some feedback that it was a

[19:39] little bit to read and not very user

[19:43] friendly and so sorry but um so we're

[19:48] anxious about the next stage of what

[19:51] happened. So maybe at the end of the

[19:52] meeting we could talk about that. Um but

[19:55] Richard showed up and talked about fire

[19:57] again and presented another um plan from

[20:02] the North Fork which was really helpful.

[20:04] Um, and then there was a tour of the

[20:07] sustainability center and then the the

[20:10] teacher that runs that came to the

[20:12] meeting and talked about how the

[20:14] community might be more supportive in

[20:16] using that center um to produce more

[20:19] food. Um, and we're still working on the

[20:26] I don't know what the modeling using a

[20:29] lot of math um on whether or not we met

[20:32] our goals of reducing our carbon

[20:35] footprint by 26%. So that will be coming

[20:39] in the future.

[20:42] >> Thanks Rebecca. Any additional volunteer

[20:44] board reports from the council?

[20:48] Not seeing any. You have the consent

[20:50] agenda enclosed in the packet from the

[20:52] August 3rd, 2026 special as well as as

[20:56] well as regular meeting. I would

[20:57] entertain a motion.

[21:00] >> Rebecca,

[21:01] >> make a motion to approve the consent

[21:03] agenda without change.

[21:05] >> Is there a second? Second. Seconded by

[21:07] councelor Sweeney. Further discussion?

[21:10] Showing of hands in favor, please. That

[21:13] motion does carry unanimously,

[21:16] Michelle. Which brings us on to our

[21:18] first

[21:19] public hearing. Actually, if it's okay

[21:21] with our city manager, Dana, we do have

[21:24] the FY26 budget amendments. Would you

[21:28] like to take those as individual

[21:31] hearings or kind of group those along

[21:33] with the budget tax levying assessments?

[21:37] >> So, I would um recommend holding a

[21:39] public hearing for the fiscal year 26

[21:41] budget amendments and then a separate

[21:43] public hearing for the fiscal year 27

[21:45] budget amendments. Um, and that would

[21:46] include all the resolutions under each

[21:48] of those items.

[21:49] >> Okay.

[21:51] With that said, we did advertise for a

[21:53] public hearing on resolution 26-22

[21:57] amending the 2026 fiscal year annual

[22:00] budget to increase appropriations in

[22:04] three funds of the city. And we will

[22:06] take public comment on this item now.

[22:09] Any public comments?

[22:13] Anyone online? Michelle,

[22:21] » for those of you who are attending

[22:23] online, would you if you would like to

[22:26] speak towards the amendments for the

[22:27] FY26 budget, please raise your hand.

[22:36] I think we're good.

[22:37] >> Thanks, Michelle. I'll turn it back to

[22:38] the council for a motion or discussion.

[22:48] I move to um approve resolution number

[22:52] 26-22,

[22:55] a resolution amending the 2026 fiscal

[22:58] year annual budget to increase

[23:00] appropriations in three funds of the

[23:02] city. Do you want me to read them?

[23:05] >> No.

[23:06] >> Record. Okay.

[23:08] Sorry, we're trying to get out of here.

[23:11] I deserve a second to the motion

[23:14] seconded by councelor Cornell. Further

[23:16] discussion Jeppy any comments?

[23:20] All those in favor please raise your

[23:22] hand. Those opposed like sign and that

[23:26] motion does carry unanimously

[23:28] which brings us on to resolution 26-23

[23:32] which we did advertise for a public

[23:34] hearing and public comment tonight

[23:36] ordering the transfer of excess amounts

[23:39] in the special improvement district

[23:41] number 166 fund and the SID revolving

[23:45] fund.

[23:46] >> Dana, anything to add?

[23:50] » Laney?

[23:52] >> Sure.

[23:53] Hello council and mayor. Um yes, for

[23:57] this particular resolution um um let's

[24:01] see I had to cut out some of my

[24:03] presentation here. Um the resolution to

[24:06] increase appropriations of resolution

[24:09] 2623 orders transfers out of the SID 166

[24:13] bond debt fund to close out the fund and

[24:16] out of the revolving bond fund to reduce

[24:19] cash reserves to appropriate levels.

[24:22] staff recommends approval of this

[24:25] resolution.

[24:27] >> Thank you, Laney. We will take public

[24:29] comment at this point. Any comments from

[24:32] the public on this hearing? Richard,

[24:39] » just a quick question. Does that have

[24:44] street

[24:46] and does this have any impact on whether

[24:49] or not we can squeeze um the request

[24:53] from Habitat uh for uh additional funds

[24:58] or would it affect how we can ask for

[25:01] additional funds for the proposed

[25:03] project that you'll hear about later in

[25:09] » does either one of the SID 166 or the

[25:12] revolving fund have those kinds of

[25:14] monies in them that could be used. So um

[25:17] what is proposed here and and what will

[25:19] occur for fiscal year 26 is moving funds

[25:21] from SID 166 fund which is a special

[25:24] improvement district for JP road that

[25:26] has been the bond has been paid in full

[25:28] that has been moved to the revolving

[25:30] fund which then placed the revolving

[25:31] fund into a higher amount in that fund

[25:34] than legally allowed by state law which

[25:36] is up to 10% of the current outstanding

[25:38] principle. that amount um we retained

[25:42] the amount contributed in the revolving

[25:44] fund for SID 166 which is our only SID

[25:47] outstanding which is the parking

[25:48] structure and so that that amount of

[25:51] funds was actually transferred to the

[25:52] general fund and is already represented

[25:54] as cash in your fiscal year 27 budget

[25:56] that we'll review shortly. Thank you,

[25:59] Dana.

[25:59] >> Have no effect on the projects that you

[26:03] >> Thanks, Richard. Michelle, anyone online

[26:04] wishing to provide public comment?

[26:09] » Those of you who are online, if you'd

[26:11] like to speak towards the resolution

[26:13] regarding SID 166 funds, please raise

[26:17] your hand.

[26:23] » I think we're good.

[26:25] >> Thank you, Michelle. I would entertain a

[26:26] motion, please. Resolution 26-23.

[26:30] Frank,

[26:31] >> I'll move to approve resolution uh

[26:34] 26-23, a resolution ordering the

[26:37] transfer of excess amounts in the

[26:40] special improvement district 166 fund

[26:42] and the SID revolving fund. Is there a

[26:45] second to the motion?

[26:47] >> Seconded by councelor Davis. Further

[26:49] discussion, Jeppi.

[26:53] All those in favor of the motion, please

[26:54] raise your hand. and those opposed like

[26:57] sign and that motion does carry

[26:59] unanimously. Thanks Dana and Laney. Uh

[27:03] we will move on to our FY27 budget tax

[27:07] levy and assessments public hearing. I

[27:10] will entertain one

[27:13] uh staff presentation on resolutions

[27:16] 26-24

[27:18] through 26-33

[27:22] if that's okay with the council. And we

[27:25] will entertain one motion for the actual

[27:29] budget and then one motion for

[27:32] resolutions 26-25

[27:35] through 33 of final adoption of the

[27:38] budget. Dana,

[27:41] >> good evening, mayor and city council.

[27:43] It's my pleasure to present um the

[27:45] proposed final fiscal year 2027 budget

[27:47] for your consideration. We've had four

[27:50] work sessions and a public hearing to

[27:51] adopt the preliminary budget tonight. um

[27:55] because we've had so much work done, I'm

[27:56] going to focus on the the updates that

[27:59] we've had since your most rec recent

[28:00] work session and then some of the risk

[28:02] and just policy overall um impacts that

[28:05] we have in the budget. So, just as a

[28:08] reminder, the state uh tax changes that

[28:10] occurred with Senate Bill 542 and House

[28:12] Bill 231 um introduced a graduated

[28:15] residential rate for property taxes in

[28:19] fiscal year 26. A homestead distinction

[28:22] is in effect for primary residents in

[28:25] fiscal year 27. There is a lawsuit

[28:28] challenging those changes. Um and so we

[28:30] will continue to monitor that.

[28:34] Future legislation may also restrict or

[28:37] eliminate the use of carry forward mills

[28:38] as we have seen similar bills in the

[28:40] past and just in this last session the

[28:43] legislature limited the amount of newly

[28:45] taxable value cities receive. Um, in

[28:48] response to this risk and reducing

[28:50] exposure, the proposed budget in the

[28:52] council packet prudently captures an

[28:54] additional five mills. We will monitor

[28:58] um both of uh the implementation and

[29:00] litigation around Senate Bill 542 and

[29:03] House Bill 231

[29:05] just to see, you know, how our municipal

[29:07] budget authority will proceed in the

[29:09] future. We do in our budget for fiscal

[29:11] year 27 have funds for a lobbyist to

[29:13] support staff and the city council in

[29:15] those efforts during the next

[29:16] legislative session starting in January.

[29:20] And on to the revenue side of things.

[29:23] Late um on Monday, August 3rd, the city

[29:25] received its taxable value from the

[29:27] department of revenue. Our certified

[29:29] taxable value rose 16 a.5% which was

[29:32] driven largely by the state level

[29:34] changes affecting non- primary

[29:36] residences. Newly taxable property

[29:38] accounted for about 2% of that increase.

[29:41] The net mill levy increase of 6.81 mills

[29:45] fund market level pay and restore

[29:47] structural balance without tapping into

[29:49] reserves for ongoing operations. As

[29:52] proposed, the city will use about

[29:54] 2,32,000

[29:56] of reserves for one-time projects in

[29:58] property tax supported funds. That

[30:00] includes 918,000 for the depot park town

[30:03] homes project, about uh $1.1 million for

[30:07] capital projects.

[30:11] Residential property tax impacts um

[30:14] include about a 7 $7.76

[30:19] um annual increase for a 1 million.01

[30:23] um I guess $1 million home um that is a

[30:27] primary residence. And so that is less

[30:29] than a 1% increase. A the same property

[30:32] if it's a second home or a short-term

[30:34] rental would be facing a $615

[30:37] increase per year or for the year. To

[30:40] put into perspective though the state

[30:41] changes. If the taxable values were

[30:44] still based on the fiscal year 26 tax

[30:46] rates and um there was no homestead

[30:49] exemption, a home valued at that $1

[30:51] million would see a 6.4% increase or

[30:54] about $5166.

[30:57] So that shows for that second home the

[31:00] change um is so significant because of

[31:02] the way that they've done the tax rates

[31:05] at the state level. Our maintenance

[31:07] assessments were adjusted based on the

[31:09] needs of each fund while ensuring

[31:11] adequate fund balance. So our storm

[31:12] water assessment is being reduced by

[31:14] 20%. Residential lighting is being

[31:17] reduced by 5%. Commercial lighting will

[31:19] be reduced by 10%. The parks and

[31:22] greenway assessment will increase 3% and

[31:24] the streets ma street maintenance

[31:26] assessment will remain flat from the

[31:28] prior year.

[31:30] We have a lot of capital projects within

[31:32] the budget this year and we're

[31:34] continuing to utilize cash that we have

[31:36] on hand and grants. Some of our more

[31:38] significant capital investments are

[31:40] utilizing SRF or intercap loan programs

[31:43] and it's uh with a reasonable you know

[31:46] time time of debt to asset ratio uh

[31:49] asset life ratio

[31:52] debt um our debt profile remains

[31:54] manageable no general obligation debt.

[31:56] Our primary outstanding obligations are

[31:58] water and wastewater SRF loans and our

[32:02] uh special improvement district 167 or

[32:04] downtown parking structure.

[32:07] The um added mills provide tax revenue

[32:09] to support two new inner cap loans. Um

[32:12] one is for the ice den roof replacement

[32:14] which um that is in the budget but we

[32:17] will seek council direction on how to

[32:18] proceed with that in the future and then

[32:20] also for the uh fire department's ladder

[32:22] truck which has been on order um and is

[32:25] expected in fiscal year I think 28 or

[32:28] 29.

[32:30] But at least we have the the revenue to

[32:32] support that loan um when uh it is uh

[32:36] arrives. Um the fiscal year budget it

[32:39] successfully has all city positions

[32:41] reaching market rates that were um

[32:43] identified in the 2024 wage market rate

[32:46] study. Um the standard adjustment is a

[32:48] 4% increase with a 2% cost of living

[32:51] adjustment and a 2% step. Health

[32:54] benefits um premiums increased 5%. The

[32:57] city will be covering about 81% of total

[32:59] premiums. It helps moderate the employee

[33:01] impact, but also is is a cost to the

[33:03] city.

[33:05] New positions are added in the budget um

[33:09] including some positions that have moved

[33:10] from part-time to full-time, and that

[33:13] includes a city a second city mechanic,

[33:15] a weekend park maintenance tech, a court

[33:18] clerk, an assistant library director.

[33:22] These uh positions mitigate service

[33:24] bottlenecks, reduce outsourcing and

[33:26] improve our continuity.

[33:29] Utilities um for water and wastewater um

[33:32] there are rate um adjustments considered

[33:35] in the budget. Um but um there has not

[33:37] been a decision on what those will be.

[33:40] Um it is likely that we'll see um

[33:42] anywhere from a one and a half to two

[33:43] and a half or 3% increase. Um but that

[33:46] will be done over uh or that would be a

[33:48] discussion that we'll have later this

[33:50] fall. solid waste is contracted um with

[33:54] uh Republic Services and with that

[33:56] contract comes a 3.25% annual increase.

[34:01] So the property tax supported uh funds

[34:04] um have an ending fund balance projected

[34:06] at $6.14 million. It's about 30.77%

[34:12] of total expenditures. It is slightly

[34:14] above the 20 to 25% targeted range. Um,

[34:18] but that is 5% lower than the prior

[34:21] year.

[34:23] So in short, the fiscal year 27 budget

[34:25] keeps Whitefish on a solid financial

[34:27] footing. The city is positioned to

[34:29] maintain core services, invest

[34:30] strategically in infrastructure, and

[34:32] respond to evolving community needs

[34:34] while upholding long-term financial

[34:36] sustainability. With our strong

[34:38] reserves, targeted staffing

[34:40] enhancements, and focused capital

[34:42] planning, the city can continue to

[34:44] deliver high-quality services to

[34:45] residents and businesses regardless of

[34:48] market fluctuations. As always, I'm

[34:50] grateful for the contributions from our

[34:52] department director, staff, and the city

[34:54] council. This year's budget has been a

[34:55] team effort with thoughtful review,

[34:57] questions, and guidance. I am happy to

[34:59] answer any questions you may have.

[35:01] >> Thank you, Dana. on your staff report.

[35:03] Any questions for our city manager on

[35:06] the FY27 budget?

[35:13] Steve,

[35:15] um Dana, uh can you just repeat what you

[35:19] said for me? I think I think I got this

[35:21] clear. You said that um if we had if if

[35:26] they hadn't changed if House Bill 231

[35:28] hadn't passed where they revised the the

[35:31] um tax rates uh for second homeowners,

[35:35] the average person the average million

[35:37] dollar home in Whitefish, which is about

[35:38] average um would have gone up 6.17%.

[35:43] >> Would have gone up [clears throat]

[35:44] excuse me um 6.45%

[35:47] >> 6.45%

[35:49] >> about $51. But because of the changes,

[35:53] we're able to hold dur under this

[35:56] budget, we're able to hold that at less

[35:59] than 1%

[36:00] >> less than 1% at $7.76

[36:06] for the year for a primary resident

[36:08] >> as part of the city tax portion of your

[36:10] >> just the city tax portion. Correct.

[36:11] >> Okay. So that's like 55 cents a month or

[36:14] something

[36:16] >> for a million dollar home. Okay. Um and

[36:19] so thanks for that analysis. because I

[36:20] didn't I wasn't quite aware that it was

[36:22] that big of a difference. That's a huge difference. Um

[36:27] and and you also mentioned that we are

[36:30] going to have all of our employees will

[36:32] be up to 100% of the regional average

[36:34] that that we came up with that we

[36:36] learned about during our wage study.

[36:39] >> Correct.

[36:39] >> Under this budget. And that and then all

[36:42] employees will get a 2%

[36:45] increase plus a 2% step as well.

[36:47] >> Correct.

[36:48] >> Okay. So that's a roughly a 4% increase

[36:50] for everybody plus the other ones that

[36:52] are coming up to

[36:54] >> correct. Some are already at 100% and

[36:55] then some will will include an increase

[36:57] up to like 5% additional.

[36:59] >> So we're doing pretty good by our for

[37:02] our employees at this point.

[37:04] >> Absolutely.

[37:05] >> Okay. Um and then we still have 30.7% in

[37:10] the reserves or our reserves at 30 our

[37:13] reserves will be at 30.7% under this

[37:15] budget.

[37:16] >> Correct.

[37:17] >> Okay. Um, good. Uh, and but that's down

[37:21] from 35% in the last fiscal year.

[37:24] >> That is correct.

[37:25] >> Okay. So, we're spending down 5%

[37:28] of our reserves.

[37:30] >> Yeah. It's kind of a function of

[37:31] expenditures, too. So, as your

[37:33] expenditures go up, um the the the

[37:35] calculation of what you need in reserves

[37:37] also changes. So, um, we are spending

[37:40] down, uh, from what our beginning fund

[37:43] balance is for the year, about $2

[37:45] million, um, for those, uh, capital

[37:47] projects and the depot park town homes.

[37:49] We are not spending down for operations

[37:51] under this, um, proposed budget, uh,

[37:54] which is the first time in quite a few

[37:56] years. Um, but we are spending down for

[37:57] capital projects.

[37:58] >> Okay. So, it's not something that would

[38:00] be a recurring cost because that's not a

[38:02] good use of our reserve funs. Correct.

[38:04] >> Most are not reoccurring or they're within your control. It's not

[38:08] like a position that you would have to

[38:10] lay off. Um, you know, some of the ones

[38:12] that are in there for capital that I

[38:14] think of might that could be recurring

[38:15] are like a patrol ve vehicle. We do

[38:18] replace one every year. Um, we do have

[38:20] some parks equipment, you know, that

[38:21] you're replacing every year or five. You

[38:24] know, it could it depends on their

[38:25] replacement schedule. So, some of them

[38:27] are recurring, but the the majority of

[38:29] those costs are not reoccurring costs.

[38:31] >> Okay. So we're not spending down the

[38:33] reserves on things that would be that we

[38:37] continually spend down reserves on.

[38:39] That's I guess that's my question.

[38:40] >> It's improved significantly. Yes. Yes.

[38:43] Yeah. It's just the capital items where

[38:45] you know it but operational supplies and

[38:48] um personnel services those are fully

[38:50] covered under this budget.

[38:52] >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um and then I I

[38:55] do have a couple questions. I'm I'm just

[38:57] confused about this this whole issue

[38:59] with the state

[39:02] um possibly limiting our ability to levy

[39:05] carryover mills in the future. Um have

[39:09] they and my understanding is that

[39:11] they've tried to pass bills like this,

[39:12] but they've never made it out of

[39:14] committee or they've died somewhere

[39:15] along the way. Is that correct?

[39:17] >> You know, I think the league's done a

[39:18] good job of trying to make sure that we

[39:20] retain that right to our carryover

[39:22] mills. Um but just like with taxable

[39:25] value, we were this last session, you

[39:27] know, they started at 50%. you'd only

[39:29] get 50%. Um, lot of lobbying, got that

[39:32] to 75%.

[39:34] My my biggest concern is the the county

[39:37] came out and said, "We're levying our

[39:39] carryover mills because of the

[39:40] uncertainty." Um, I think other

[39:42] communities likely are as well. And my

[39:44] concern is once they see that, they're

[39:46] going to eliminate what's remaining.

[39:48] >> Okay. And but they they could go back if

[39:52] they wanted to and say, "Well, actually,

[39:54] we're going to reindex where you were

[39:56] and we're going to reindex it to the

[39:58] beginning of fiscal year 26 when you

[40:00] when pe when the county hadn't and we

[40:03] hadn't levied any extra mills, couldn't

[40:04] they?"

[40:07] >> Most of the tax laws are not retroactive

[40:09] because it would have impacts to uh

[40:11] property taxpayers. So typically the tax

[40:14] bills are forwardlooking,

[40:16] >> but we're talking about the Montana

[40:18] state legislature in Helena. Correct.

[40:20] >> Correct. Yes. But the Department of

[40:22] Revenue, you know, has a a big job on

[40:24] their hands. So it it would depend on

[40:26] the legislation. Um but I would see, you

[40:29] know, they've done it for a voted levy.

[40:30] So our voted levy last year, we had to

[40:33] change from a 24 voted levy. The voters

[40:35] of Whitefish said 24 mills for our fire

[40:39] department. and and the state did change

[40:40] that and said sure you can keep the 24

[40:43] mills but you have to adjust to the

[40:44] prior year revenue collection and then

[40:47] you're you're based on taxable value or

[40:49] you can change to dollar value

[40:51] assessment and then go up with our

[40:53] calculation for 1510420. So there's some

[40:56] stuff that's retroactive and and they

[40:57] aren't even necessarily I guess in that

[41:00] specific legislation I felt that they

[41:02] weren't even letting the voters have a

[41:04] decision because they had already made

[41:05] that decision here locally.

[41:07] >> Right. So I mean they they I mean, my

[41:10] concern is that if we do this and we,

[41:12] you know, we add these extra mills,

[41:14] we're adding five mills, correct?

[41:16] According to

[41:18] >> what's in the

[41:18] >> from what from what the original

[41:20] proposed budget was.

[41:21] >> Correct.

[41:22] >> We're adding an extra five mills to try

[41:23] to capture some of that money.

[41:26] >> Correct.

[41:26] >> Um, but the concern and and there's been

[41:30] a lot of hand ringing about this um on

[41:32] the city council about what do we do

[41:34] about this? Um, but it just seems that

[41:38] no matter what we do, they're going to

[41:40] paint a bullseye around us anyway. Um,

[41:43] and if we if we start to if we do go

[41:46] back and levy these extra mills and we

[41:48] go increase it from five to 10 or even

[41:51] all the way to we have what 21 mills we

[41:53] could levy 21 point something roughly.

[41:56] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think we'll with the

[41:58] five mills. Um,

[41:59] >> but it just seems to me that they would

[42:01] that I mean,

[42:03] >> does it seem it just seems to me anyway

[42:05] and I'll and then I'll ask you one more

[42:07] question, I'll be done, but it just

[42:08] seems to me that if we do that, you

[42:11] know, that's going to draw their

[42:12] attention even more than um than us

[42:15] actually doing right by our city

[42:17] residents for years and years and not

[42:19] raising taxes. Uh, and this this five

[42:22] mills is just to me it seems as if it's,

[42:25] you know, $7 a year. Um the the last

[42:30] question I have though is that if they

[42:32] do if they do pass a law that says we

[42:34] can't

[42:36] um that we can't levy those uh carryover

[42:39] mills.

[42:40] Do those laws take effect immediately

[42:42] and then we're we can't do anything for

[42:44] our next budget year because I mean

[42:45] they're not going to meet until January

[42:47] of 2027 and then they only meet for four

[42:51] months and in the meantime we'll be

[42:53] preparing a new budget with the

[42:55] possibility of saying oh looks like they

[42:57] tried to take away our mills now we

[42:59] should go in and levy them rather than

[43:02] >> so they could make

[43:03] >> Could we do a budget amendment? What are

[43:04] our options?

[43:05] >> Yeah. So for next fiscal year, they can

[43:07] make their bill bill bills effective

[43:09] upon signing. Um they can be effective

[43:11] immediately. Typically a bill is

[43:12] effective October one, but um for tax

[43:15] bills, they they can make them

[43:17] immediately effective. So if you if you

[43:19] recall the the 2025 legislation that

[43:22] came out about the tax rates were for

[43:25] fiscal year 26. So they adopted them,

[43:27] you know, by May of 2025 and that was

[43:30] effective for our budget that fall. So,

[43:33] or summer, I guess for kind of summer,

[43:35] but yeah, they they can do that. They can make it effective so that

[43:38] because we don't pass our budgets till

[43:40] August. We don't get taxable value till

[43:42] August. They could do changes.

[43:44] >> Okay. Could we do a budget amendment and

[43:46] levy?

[43:48] >> Not on the tax levy side because we have

[43:50] to have those to the county u by the 1st

[43:52] of September. So, we couldn't go back

[43:54] and levy for this fiscal year budget.

[43:57] >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

[43:59] >> Thank you, Steve. Rebecca.

[44:02] >> Yep. Um Dana, could you just take a

[44:04] minute to explain how when the tiff

[44:07] expired, we then um normally the those

[44:15] um okay taxes would go into the general

[44:18] fund, but um at the time the city

[44:21] manager advised the council to eliminate

[44:25] 10 mills. And so we it's actually

[44:28] legally what we're capable of taxing,

[44:31] but he felt like we were in a financial

[44:33] situation at the time where we didn't

[44:35] need those 10 mills. Um but could you

[44:38] explain that history because I think

[44:40] it's kind of pertinent to right now.

[44:43] Yeah. So um in um 2023

[44:48] uh 2021

[44:51] um our tiff value so with a tax

[44:54] increment financing district the

[44:56] increment, the amount that grows from

[44:58] the base value, you know, until that sun

[45:00] sets, that increment, that that growth

[45:02] goes into a special fund at the city and

[45:04] it's to be invested in that district.

[45:07] Ours was a pretty large district and

[45:08] included downtown, um, included the

[45:10] schools where we provided funding for

[45:12] that. When that sun sets, um, the amount

[45:15] of value there goes back to all the

[45:18] taxing jurisdictions. So the county gets

[45:20] newly taxable, the school and the city

[45:22] got newly taxable value. And our newly

[45:24] taxable that year was $13 million.

[45:28] Just in comparison, this year's newly

[45:30] taxable value is 2.1 million. So big big

[45:34] new taxable value coming in. had we

[45:36] levied the full amount of our mills just

[45:39] to absor to to recapture all of that

[45:41] newly taxable would not have provided a

[45:44] tax increase to anybody because it's

[45:46] simply that those properties in that

[45:48] district those mills just go back to our

[45:51] general fund. Um so we no longer have

[45:54] the tiff funds but that year when we

[45:56] reduced mills by 10 mills it did reduce

[45:59] the city's total revenue that can be

[46:00] invested um in the city. Often we used

[46:03] tax increment there was some personal in

[46:06] there. But, um, it was fairly minor. I

[46:08] think it was like $400,000. A lot of

[46:10] those funds were used though to like

[46:12] redevelop um downtown um helping with um

[46:16] the bike uh pathway in front of um the

[46:19] fire brand helping with some of the

[46:21] projects in town as well. So, so we did

[46:23] provide a tax decrease that year

[46:25] actually. Um and I was city manager at

[46:27] the time, but it was the former city

[46:29] manager that made that suggestion. And

[46:30] that's fine. And I I I think at that

[46:32] time we were in a different place in

[46:34] time with COVID and uncertainty in the

[46:37] market. And so I think it was a sound

[46:39] decision. Uh but I do think you know

[46:41] when we look at our tax bill history for

[46:43] the city from 2019 to 2026

[46:48] our average growth is 2.5%. We have not

[46:53] had significant increases. That doesn't

[46:55] mean that um home values haven't

[46:59] changed. you know, the values of the

[47:01] homes have gone up. So, those those

[47:02] values are up, but overall, it's an

[47:04] average of 2.5. For that million-dollar

[47:06] home, for an example, it was a 2.5%

[47:08] average over those years,

[47:11] which was far less than the other

[47:14] jurisdictions like the county and the

[47:15] state and the schools, which were

[47:17] averaging closer to that six uh to 7%.

[47:22] And the risk to not raising or

[47:25] reclaiming the mills or using the mills

[47:28] that are legally allowed for us to use

[47:30] to take care of the city is that we

[47:33] would have to limit growth or building

[47:37] things like a second fire hall or

[47:40] something, right? You'd have less you'd

[47:42] have more constraint about managing big

[47:45] projects. So yeah, so as like so as I I

[47:49] just mentioned earlier with the five

[47:51] added mills, we're still spending down

[47:53] our reserves. Um of that the 918,000 for

[47:57] depot park town homes like that we

[47:59] already knew we were doing. That was

[48:00] COVID um uh well state uh and local

[48:04] fiscal fiscal recovery funds. ARPA I'll

[48:08] just say that this is during the the

[48:09] COVID era where we had a significant

[48:11] about $2 million come in from the

[48:13] federal government. So, we had already

[48:15] identified that spend down, but that

[48:16] still leaves about a million dollars of

[48:18] spend down for capital. And as I

[48:20] mentioned earlier, some of those

[48:22] projects are reoccurring projects. And

[48:25] so, by levying the 10 mills, you would

[48:28] reduce that spend down of reserves. If,

[48:30] excuse me, if you went from the five

[48:31] added to 10 added, um you would spend

[48:35] down about $1.4 million. That would

[48:38] leave us with about 33.81%

[48:40] in reserves. Um and then you know you

[48:44] could look at in the future years this

[48:46] year you know it would still leave a

[48:48] spendown of capital for us of about

[48:50] $57,000 but in the future years you

[48:53] could use it for capital like our patrol

[48:55] vehicles or fire apparatus or parks

[48:57] equipment that does get um replaced

[48:59] frequently. Um or you could utilize

[49:01] those funds to supplement workforce

[49:04] needs um as we grow such as adding

[49:06] firefighters for that second station.

[49:08] You could add a few and go out for the

[49:10] public safety levy with a smaller dollar

[49:12] amount. Um, you could look at adding the

[49:14] community risk reduction coordinator

[49:16] that was requested by the fire

[49:17] department that I did not include in the

[49:19] budget. Um, and that was presented to

[49:20] you during the work session. You know,

[49:22] we have a part-time IT position that

[49:24] could go to full-time. We have other

[49:26] department positions that have been

[49:27] requested or or probably would have been

[49:30] requested if it wasn't for my direction

[49:32] to them to department heads that keep

[49:35] your budgets flat as possible like

[49:37] minimal increases. And that's been the

[49:39] statement to department heads for the

[49:40] past five years at least. And so what

[49:43] would we see in a perfect world? I don't

[49:45] know. They just have the direction from

[49:48] me to keep stuff low. So if you had

[49:49] those fund those funds available, you've

[49:52] recaptured it. The cost would be for a

[49:55] million-dollar home about $53 for the

[49:57] year. Um a 6.62%

[50:00] increase which for that's a primary

[50:02] residence which is pretty close to what

[50:06] would have happened um with the five

[50:09] mills if the tax rates hadn't changed if

[50:12] you remember the 6.45%.

[50:14] Um a second home would see you know a

[50:17] larger increase at $711 but again the

[50:20] majority of that is the state tax rate

[50:22] changes too. Um, and so because it would

[50:25] have been a $100 with a 10 mil increase

[50:27] um for the for the year um or 12.55%

[50:31] increase. So I hope I answered your

[50:32] question. I kind of went off on a spiel.

[50:34] >> Yeah, I just I just wanted to have um

[50:37] some history and then also some

[50:39] rationale going forward. Thank you.

[50:41] >> Thanks, Rebecca. Additional questions

[50:43] for our city manager

[50:48] Jeppe. Anything?

[50:50] >> Yes. Yes, sure. I was giving priority to

[50:54] the people in the flesh. Uh Dana, we've

[50:57] been working a lot on this budget. I'd

[51:00] like for you to help me uh for the

[51:03] public public record to check a couple

[51:06] of numbers and then I have a couple of

[51:07] questions. Uh, am I correct that if I go

[51:12] through the budget, this year we're

[51:14] looking at a property tax revenue total

[51:17] increase of 31 and a bit percent.

[51:22] >> That is correct. Under the the budget

[51:24] that is in the packet. Yes. Correct.

[51:27] >> And and is it correct that we have

[51:29] additional property tax revenue of

[51:31] around 1.750

[51:33] million?

[51:36] So yes, the resort tax well the resort

[51:39] tax are you talking about resort tax

[51:40] relief?

[51:42] >> No, property tax revenue.

[51:44] >> Oh yes. Yes, correct. That's 1.743

[51:47] additional.

[51:49] >> Now despite what we think about what the

[51:51] state is doing to us, uh is it correct

[51:54] that we had a certified taxable value

[51:57] increase of around 16.5%.

[52:01] >> Yes, that's correct.

[52:02] And is it correct that because of those

[52:05] bills passed in Helena, we are quote

[52:08] unquote saving around five mills that we

[52:12] would have to charge to what I call the

[52:15] residents versus the non-residents.

[52:20] » Could you ask that again? I wasn't quite

[52:22] following on that one. because of the

[52:25] different tax rates. Am I correct that

[52:29] we moved or the the state moved around

[52:32] five mills worth of value from the uh

[52:35] primary owners to the non- primary

[52:39] owners?

[52:40] >> I see what you're saying. Yes. Um yes,

[52:42] based on the the primary residence being

[52:44] a $7.76

[52:46] increase versus the 615. Yes. Yes,

[52:49] that's correct. They shifted it to

[52:51] second homeowners.

[52:52] >> Perfect. Now let's look at what the

[52:54] property the resort tax is doing. The

[52:56] gross city levy that we're looking at

[52:58] right now it's around 80 and a bit

[53:01] mills. Correct.

[53:05] >> So the number of the total number of

[53:07] mills levy levied is 60.12

[53:11] mills.

[53:12] >> Now there are 20 uh uh that are rebated

[53:15] from the um resort tax. Am I correct?

[53:19] >> Correct. Yes. Without resort tax it

[53:21] would be yes. It' be 80.2.

[53:24] >> Perfect. Thank you. And and the revenue

[53:28] that comes from those five meals that

[53:30] we're debating that we pretty much all

[53:33] are accepting to be in the budget, it's

[53:35] around $66,000.

[53:38] Right.

[53:38] >> Correct. Yes. Correct.

[53:41] >> Perfect. I'm almost done now. I have a

[53:43] couple questions and then I'm done.

[53:51] Uh it it it I read that the beginning

[53:55] fund balances came in around 5 million

[53:59] higher than what we expected.

[54:03] >> No. Well, that might have been like the

[54:05] preliminary projections. Um but the the

[54:09] beginning fund balance for our property

[54:10] tax supported funds is 8.17 million. Um

[54:15] we anticipated ending fiscal year 26

[54:19] with

[54:21] uh 6.15

[54:24] million. So we did have additional

[54:26] beginning fund balance um over what was

[54:30] projected. Um that was

[54:35] let me see I got to see what I'm looking

[54:36] at here. Um that was mostly when you

[54:38] look at uh you know the the $2 million

[54:42] you look at what was spent on uh depot

[54:44] park town homes what we're carrying over

[54:46] that's about a million of that dollar

[54:47] difference because you know we're going

[54:49] to anticipate spending that down again

[54:51] this year. Um but we just didn't utilize

[54:53] all the funds in fiscal year 26. Um and

[54:55] then there were some other ones uh you

[54:57] know department savings but also um uh

[55:01] we had additional revenue over what we

[55:03] had projected in some of the categories

[55:05] and then some lower than expected as

[55:07] well. So it yeah it's a net of ending

[55:10] the year fiscal year 26 um with 8.17

[55:15] uh but we had projected the 6.15 again

[55:18] take a million off that because that was

[55:19] the depot park town homes.

[55:22] >> So thank you. So I was incorrect reading

[55:25] five million. So if it was 2 million

[55:27] difference meaning we started we will

[55:29] start the year with two million quote

[55:32] unquote more than we thought we were

[55:33] going to have previously. And I

[55:36] understand 1 million comes and goes. Uh

[55:39] 2 million I is around uh three and a

[55:44] half mills. Am I correct or I'm saying

[55:47] it wrong? So a million dollar is closer

[55:51] to like seven maybe it'sund seven or

[55:55] eight 121,000 times or a million divided

[55:58] by 121,000

[56:00] >> right so what I where I was going was is

[56:04] that we are starting with around eight

[56:08] meals for 1 million or 16 meals for two

[56:12] million uh ahead of the curve than we

[56:15] thought before.

[56:17] >> Correct. And I, you know, I talk about

[56:19] Depot Park Town Homes. There are a

[56:20] couple other projects that have carried

[56:22] forward that we did not spend last year

[56:24] that were gonna that was budgeted to be

[56:26] spent and will be carried forward.

[56:27] $150,000 for White Fish Yards, uh the to

[56:32] Sky Park Bridge Trail. Um you have the

[56:35] Riverbend Path, that's smaller, about

[56:37] $25,000. Um so there have been some

[56:40] carryover projects that weren't

[56:41] completed in fiscal year 26, but are

[56:43] carry forward. So those costs just carry

[56:45] forward as well.

[56:47] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you,

[56:49] mayor, for letting me speak so long with

[56:51] Dana.

[56:52] >> Thank you, Jeppi. Further questions for

[56:54] our city manager, Andy.

[56:58] >> Dana, if you could just describe for us

[57:00] a little bit because you are the

[57:01] gatekeeper of the budget and everything

[57:02] filters up to you and then you provide

[57:04] that filter for what ultimately ends up

[57:06] in either on our screen or in our book

[57:08] that we get. And

[57:10] I know that a lot of things get called

[57:12] out in that process and I just wondering

[57:14] if you could tell us a few of the things

[57:16] that we are not funding in this budget

[57:19] that were department requests.

[57:20] >> Yeah. So that's that's a good question.

[57:23] So as I mentioned like the the one that

[57:25] stands out from a from a workforce uh

[57:28] first we'll go into that the community

[57:30] uh risk reduction specialist. Um I see

[57:33] very important value in that position.

[57:35] we're wrapping up our CWPP. Um, that's

[57:38] going to take a huge implementation

[57:40] effort that our current fire department

[57:42] staff just do not have the capacity to

[57:44] do. And so when I see that project come

[57:47] forward, I think it's a very important

[57:49] position. That said, budget's tight. I'm

[57:53] not asking the council for another

[57:55] position. I, you know, I prioritize and

[57:57] I've had like the mechanics been asked

[57:58] for for probably three years and it and

[58:00] I'm I'm putting the department heads at

[58:02] notice like, yeah, you can request

[58:03] something, but it's not necessarily

[58:04] getting filled. So, um I'm sure there

[58:06] are other positions that might be

[58:07] necessary um or you know will be coming

[58:10] up in the future. Um but so from a a

[58:12] workforce perspective, there's that. Um

[58:15] from capital perspective, uh the police

[58:18] department needs another patrol vehicle.

[58:19] We're putting one in the budget. They

[58:21] actually need two. Our our police

[58:23] vehicles are running all day, you know,

[58:25] every day. And so they rack up a lot of

[58:28] miles. And then, you know, you look at

[58:31] um I'm trying to think of other ones off

[58:34] the top of my head. Um just because of

[58:36] the direction that I've provided them

[58:40] to minimize their budget increases,

[58:43] I think I haven't even seen what is out

[58:46] there that they could actually utilize.

[58:49] Um parks and wreck, we need to replace

[58:50] the tree grates downtown. Whose

[58:52] responsibility is that? Um where are we

[58:54] going to find the funding for that?

[58:55] That's one that has just come up. and um

[58:58] benches and downtown garbage cans come

[59:01] out of our uh general fund. Those things

[59:03] are not in this budget that um are

[59:05] projects that we see value for the

[59:07] community. Um finishing up that bear

[59:09] resistant garbage containers from

[59:11] basically I think it's Second South um

[59:13] on Central Avenue to again, you know,

[59:15] inform the public that we live with

[59:17] bears. It's really important to have

[59:18] those garbage containers. Those are just

[59:20] all these different projects that we've

[59:21] just cut because they might be um

[59:25] we can wait a little longer. vehicle um

[59:28] till next year, but we're going to have

[59:29] another one in next year's budget is

[59:31] realistically what it's going to happen.

[59:32] Um and then you know the garbage cans

[59:34] just they are what they are. So those

[59:37] are those are some of the projects, but

[59:38] again I I think there's more out there.

[59:40] You also can look at our capital

[59:41] improvement plan. Quite honestly, if you

[59:42] look at the capital improvement plan for

[59:44] our um police, fire, and parks, there

[59:48] are significant capital projects that

[59:50] have been pushed out in years simply due

[59:52] to funding.

[59:55] » Thank you.

[59:57] Additional questions from the council.

[1:00:01] We did advertise for a public hearing

[1:00:03] and I will take public comments on

[1:00:05] resolution 26-24

[1:00:09] which is our FY27 budget taxi

[1:00:13] excuse me tax levy and assessments which

[1:00:16] includes resolution 26-24

[1:00:20] I believe through resolution 26-33.

[1:00:25] Any public comment this evening?

[1:00:28] Mike.

[1:00:33] » Good evening. Michael Hine, 612 Luffer,

[1:00:36] Whitefish. I don't have a strong feeling

[1:00:39] about the coming debate between five and

[1:00:41] 10 mills and what's going to happen, but

[1:00:44] I would say that

[1:00:47] the reserves that the city's holding are

[1:00:49] quite high, even by standards of small

[1:00:52] cities. Most small cities have a higher

[1:00:55] reserve recommended percentage because

[1:00:59] borrowing costs are higher. It's more uh

[1:01:03] prone to we have wildfire risk. We have

[1:01:06] something that could catastrophic

[1:01:07] problems. Um but the big one is usually

[1:01:09] revenue variance and Whitefish as a

[1:01:12] resort community doesn't really have a

[1:01:14] lot as much revenue variance at least in

[1:01:18] one year um than other towns. So, one of

[1:01:23] the three pillars of needing more

[1:01:25] reserves for small cities might not

[1:01:27] apply to us. Just something to consider

[1:01:30] when we're talking about having 30% or

[1:01:32] 35% reserves. Um, how much we need is

[1:01:36] probably as important as what projects

[1:01:39] are being funded this year versus next

[1:01:42] year. Um Dana makes a good point about

[1:01:45] looking at the capital improvement plan

[1:01:47] and trying to look at a timeline beyond

[1:01:51] fiscal year 27 and how what it's going

[1:01:54] to look like in 27 or 28. Um obviously

[1:01:57] you have the risk management of what the

[1:01:59] state's going to do with the um possibly

[1:02:04] banning carryovers that failed last

[1:02:06] legislative session pretty quickly. So

[1:02:09] it may not be an imminent risk. Um, it

[1:02:12] needs to be taken into account. Again, I

[1:02:14] don't have a I'm not voting. So, you're

[1:02:17] voting, but that's that's all I got.

[1:02:20] Thanks.

[1:02:22] >> Thank you, Michael. Ed,

[1:02:31] » good evening. Ed Liser, 1355 Lion

[1:02:34] Mountain Drive. Um, I wanted I I picked

[1:02:38] up on something Dana said about um

[1:02:42] hiring somebody to execute the CWPP

[1:02:47] and having gone over that um thoroughly.

[1:02:51] Um how we implement that is going to

[1:02:57] require

[1:02:58] somebody somebody that we don't have

[1:03:01] right now. And you know, this is the

[1:03:05] time of the year when, you know, we

[1:03:07] think about Spokane and all those other

[1:03:11] uh places that are um being affected by

[1:03:16] wildfire and we are vulnerable. I'm I'm

[1:03:21] telling you, as a fire behavior analyst

[1:03:23] who spent a good portion of my career,

[1:03:28] um that CWP

[1:03:31] has got it right and we need somebody to

[1:03:35] execute that. We don't have that right

[1:03:38] now and we're just hanging out. So, I

[1:03:42] would strongly encourage the uh council

[1:03:46] to consider a position that takes charge

[1:03:51] of that. Thank you.

[1:03:54] >> Thank you, Ed. Further public comment

[1:03:57] this evening?

[1:03:59] Michelle, anyone online?

[1:04:02] For those of you who are online, if you

[1:04:04] would like to speak towards the FY27

[1:04:07] budget, please raise your hand.

[1:04:16] I think we're good.

[1:04:18] >> Thank you, Michelle. I would turn it

[1:04:19] back to the council, close the public

[1:04:21] hearing, and entertain a motion, please.

[1:04:27] » Steve, make a motion to um approve

[1:04:33] resolutions 26-24

[1:04:36] through 26-33. Is that an okay? motion

[1:04:40] to make. Uh those are the

[1:04:43] um resolution accepting and approving

[1:04:46] municipal budget city of White Fish for

[1:04:47] the 2027 fiscal year.

[1:04:49] >> Thank you, Steve. Is there a second to

[1:04:51] the motion?

[1:04:52] >> Seconded by councelor Davis. Further

[1:04:54] discussion.

[1:04:56] >> Steve.

[1:04:57] >> Yeah, I'll just I'll speak to my motion

[1:04:59] first.

[1:05:01] Um, I I know there's been a lot of uh

[1:05:06] disagreement over what we should do with

[1:05:07] the carryover mills. Um,

[1:05:10] and I just want to bring up a couple

[1:05:12] points uh that I think are relevant.

[1:05:15] Number one, in the matter of about a

[1:05:17] week and a half, we went from cutting

[1:05:19] things from the budget to realizing we

[1:05:22] have a surplus to then talking about

[1:05:24] raising taxes on the order of $90 a year

[1:05:29] from where we were with our preliminary

[1:05:31] budget, which is what we thought we were

[1:05:33] going to have to cut a couple things

[1:05:34] from to um when we got our our tax

[1:05:38] valuation. Um talking talking about the 10 mil raise. So, I I think that the five mil raise is it's a compromise.

[1:05:49] It's a middle ground. It keeps taxes

[1:05:51] flat.

[1:05:53] Um, if we look at what's going on in

[1:05:55] this country, you know, everything is

[1:05:58] up. Groceries are up 6%, health care,

[1:06:01] depending on where you work, is up to

[1:06:02] 10%. And just in the city of Whitefish,

[1:06:05] I think um Dana said it's up 5%.

[1:06:10] Uh gas is up 10% anywhere from six to

[1:06:13] 10%. Utilities are up 20%.

[1:06:17] We have mandatory increases in our trash

[1:06:19] and water 3% 3 and a.5%.

[1:06:23] And we have an opportunity to keep taxes

[1:06:26] level with the current budget as it's

[1:06:28] presented. And I think that um I think

[1:06:30] that is is a fair uh I think that's fair

[1:06:33] to the people of of Whitefish. On a

[1:06:37] bigger picture because I because I try

[1:06:38] to see things 10,000 or 30,000 feet

[1:06:43] by increasing taxes more. I mean, we're

[1:06:46] already increasing them from where we

[1:06:47] were from our with our preliminary

[1:06:49] budget, which would have been a tax a

[1:06:51] tax decrease again. Um, by by increasing

[1:06:56] taxes,

[1:06:58] we are saying to the people of Whitefish

[1:07:01] that the failures of the people in

[1:07:04] Helena to um to take care of all the

[1:07:08] other things that are not your property

[1:07:10] taxes, the failure of the people at the

[1:07:13] national level, including our

[1:07:14] representatives in Washington DC,

[1:07:18] to keep your to keep your cost of living

[1:07:21] low.

[1:07:22] We're come we're going to have to we're

[1:07:24] coming at looking at this from the

[1:07:26] perspective of okay, we're going to put

[1:07:28] it on you as local residents on your

[1:07:30] property taxes because

[1:07:33] uh because we can't take we haven't

[1:07:35] we've done a terrible job with

[1:07:36] everything else. You know, if we didn't

[1:07:38] if we weren't talking about, you know,

[1:07:40] the rising cost of health care,

[1:07:41] groceries, gasoline, utilities, all of

[1:07:44] those things, it would be a much more

[1:07:46] palatable situation to say, okay, yeah,

[1:07:49] we need to do this now. There are there

[1:07:51] are some possibly unfunded things from

[1:07:54] our that that come up uh during the

[1:07:56] budget discussions Dana has. Uh my big

[1:07:59] question is okay, if those are real

[1:08:01] priorities,

[1:08:03] why aren't they in the budget in the

[1:08:04] first place? Why haven't we been talking

[1:08:06] about this from the beginning? So, um,

[1:08:09] so I think ultimately this the five mil

[1:08:13] increase is a is a middle ground that

[1:08:16] keeps taxes, your property taxes from

[1:08:18] the city flat

[1:08:21] for this year and we'll have to wait and

[1:08:23] see what Helena does next year and I

[1:08:26] think we will be able to accommodate

[1:08:27] that um because people across the state

[1:08:31] seem seem they're able to manage it. So,

[1:08:35] uh, that's what I have to say about my

[1:08:36] motion. Thank you, Steve. Further

[1:08:38] discussion, Rebecca?

[1:08:40] >> Yeah. Um, just point of clarification.

[1:08:43] If I wanted to vote for the 10 mil

[1:08:46] increase, do we um just vote no on this

[1:08:51] motion and then come back?

[1:08:52] >> There's a motion on the table for the 5%

[1:08:55] mil carryover retention. And if that

[1:08:57] motion fails, then I would reconsider a

[1:09:00] second motion for

[1:09:03] >> Okay.

[1:09:03] >> discretion.

[1:09:04] >> Um, and I would like to speak to Steve's

[1:09:07] concern about um the cost to taxpayers.

[1:09:11] Um it I think it's actually $53 per year

[1:09:16] for a million dollar home, isn't it,

[1:09:18] Dana?

[1:09:20] >> For the 10 mills. Yes. For 10 mills

[1:09:22] versus $7.

[1:09:23] >> But from the from the preliminary

[1:09:25] budget,

[1:09:25] >> Rebecca has the seat.

[1:09:28] >> But yeah, he was referencing the

[1:09:29] preliminary budget which was um higher

[1:09:32] at just the preliminary budget without

[1:09:34] added mills

[1:09:35] >> and that was because we didn't have our

[1:09:36] taxable value

[1:09:37] >> and and I do agree that it's

[1:09:40] accumulative. We are living in very very

[1:09:44] expensive times. But um I feel like it's

[1:09:48] imperative that we deal with our fire

[1:09:50] risk and if this is one way to possibly

[1:09:54] fund the firefighters that we need and

[1:09:57] we can actually build a second fire

[1:09:59] station in two to three years um and get

[1:10:03] what like what Ed said an expert to

[1:10:05] manage our fire risk. I think it's worth

[1:10:07] it um to increase the taxes in a year

[1:10:11] where our taxable value came back higher

[1:10:13] than we expected.

[1:10:16] >> Thanks, Rebecca. Further comments? Ben?

[1:10:21] » So, I've been First of all, I would

[1:10:23] start by thanking staff. I know this

[1:10:25] budget is a tremendous amount of work.

[1:10:27] Um there's a million decisions that go

[1:10:29] into this and I know this is a difficult

[1:10:32] budget year but um I think the the

[1:10:36] revenues the reserves the finances of

[1:10:40] the city are very strong and I think

[1:10:41] that um that is largely not largely it

[1:10:45] is due to careful fiscal management over

[1:10:47] a very long period of time and I greatly

[1:10:49] appreciate all the efforts that go into

[1:10:50] that and I want to start with that

[1:10:51] first.

[1:10:53] Um I I would make a comment on the the

[1:10:56] that we've had over the last couple

[1:10:58] weeks regarding a carry the concept of

[1:11:00] carryover mills.

[1:11:02] Um, I've been thinking about this pretty

[1:11:04] hard and and um

[1:11:07] I guess for me it it has some some

[1:11:10] parallels to when a couple months ago we

[1:11:12] voted on ambulance fees and in the in

[1:11:16] the sense that there's two sides of the

[1:11:18] ar a carryover mill there's two sides of

[1:11:20] an argument. One is is a is a principal

[1:11:22] argument which says

[1:11:24] that a carryover mill when we come in at

[1:11:27] the end of a budget and add a carryover

[1:11:28] mill or add a mill in at the end, it

[1:11:30] basically says we're we're taxing

[1:11:33] raising tax revenue for citizens that we

[1:11:35] don't have an identified need for. And I think I think that's true and I have a

[1:11:42] hard time a very hard time with that

[1:11:44] personally. Um but the other side of the

[1:11:46] argument which is also very good is the

[1:11:48] fact that we are

[1:11:51] we live in the world we live in and

[1:11:52] we're creatures of the state and we have

[1:11:54] a game to play with our budgeting in the

[1:11:55] state and um

[1:11:59] you know the state may or may not remove

[1:12:01] carryover mills which might reduce our

[1:12:03] taxing authority going forward. So

[1:12:05] there's there's an argument to be made

[1:12:06] that we should tax more now to be able

[1:12:10] to have revenues in the future. Now,

[1:12:12] what is before us is the um the five mil

[1:12:15] additional version of it. And I would

[1:12:17] point out that

[1:12:20] in my brain, I'm I quite honestly I'm a

[1:12:23] very principal person. I sort of came

[1:12:24] into this discussion feeling like we

[1:12:26] should approve without the additional

[1:12:28] mills. Um as on general principle, I

[1:12:31] just have a very hard time with it. But

[1:12:34] I do recognize the situation we're in. I

[1:12:36] think the the version that is here feels

[1:12:38] like a compromise to me. We have um five

[1:12:41] additional mills every year. I would

[1:12:44] point out that that does raise enough

[1:12:45] funds to pay for basically everything

[1:12:47] Dana just brought up um including the

[1:12:49] wildfire um staff member um and then

[1:12:53] some. And um and I think I would

[1:12:56] personally have a very hard time very

[1:12:59] hard time approving a budget with with

[1:13:01] even more mills in that. Um and so I

[1:13:04] think that I'm going to support what's

[1:13:05] here. Um, I don't think these decisions

[1:13:07] are make or break for the city in any

[1:13:09] the magnitude of them in any way, shape,

[1:13:11] or form. I totally understand both sides

[1:13:13] of this argument, but I think for me,

[1:13:15] um, the principle of it is is as far as

[1:13:19] I can go and so um, I'm going to support

[1:13:21] the current motion and, uh, and I'll be

[1:13:23] happy with how we end up here. So,

[1:13:24] thanks.

[1:13:25] >> Thank you, Ben. Andy,

[1:13:28] >> well, I think you guys all know what I'm

[1:13:29] going to say. [laughter]

[1:13:31] Um, I find 10 mills, quite frankly, a

[1:13:34] compromised position knowing that we've

[1:13:35] got 21.7 laying on the table right now.

[1:13:38] Um, there's a part of me that says we

[1:13:40] should grab all 21, but I realize that's

[1:13:42] not realistic.

[1:13:44] Um, as far as identified needs, I think

[1:13:47] we have many of them. We had 20 hours in

[1:13:50] this community since the first of the

[1:13:51] year when we had no emergency services

[1:13:53] coverage. 208 hours, that's eight days

[1:13:56] basically.

[1:13:58] And at five carryover mills pickup,

[1:14:00] we're not hiring another firefighter for

[1:14:02] that. We know that even at a minimum,

[1:14:04] we're looking at nine firefighters to

[1:14:06] hire to staff a second station, which we

[1:14:08] have three plans before us that tell us

[1:14:12] that that needs to happen. We've had

[1:14:14] that for a long time. And I just

[1:14:18] know what it's like in this community

[1:14:19] and having been through budgets when

[1:14:21] we've had slowdowns, which you guys

[1:14:25] haven't. You've not seen that budget and

[1:14:28] those budgets gets difficult. Rebecca

[1:14:31] has. Yeah.

[1:14:33] >> And those and those budgets are very difficult because suddenly we're

[1:14:36] not generating

[1:14:38] subdivision

[1:14:40] application fees and building permit

[1:14:42] application fees. And we still have a

[1:14:44] planning department with people that

[1:14:45] need to get a paycheck and they're

[1:14:48] losing money every month. And that's

[1:14:50] coming out of the general fund. That's

[1:14:51] where those dollars come from. And when

[1:14:53] we can build reserves, I think that's a

[1:14:54] really really good thing for us to do.

[1:14:57] Regarded carryover mills, I agree with

[1:14:59] Steve's argument in part that we kind of

[1:15:01] don't know what the state's going to do.

[1:15:02] And part of raising is we're dealing

[1:15:06] with county government and federal

[1:15:08] government and state government that

[1:15:10] can't find themselves in a brightly lit

[1:15:13] room with a flashlight a lot of times

[1:15:15] when it comes to fiscal matters. But I

[1:15:19] can't justify making a statement by only

[1:15:21] raising five mills

[1:15:24] because they're inept. I have to look at

[1:15:27] what makes it good for this community. I

[1:15:30] have to know that I'm looking forward

[1:15:33] and I'm seeing what our capital needs

[1:15:35] are going to be and they're going to be

[1:15:36] there. And one of the things I also look

[1:15:39] at is we've had well let's take the 10

[1:15:42] mills for example

[1:15:44] since 2022 over a six-year period of

[1:15:46] time even going up 10 mills this time

[1:15:50] the total increase on a home in the $1

[1:15:52] million category in this community has

[1:15:54] been $114.

[1:15:55] That's with levying additional 10 mills

[1:15:58] in this budget. That's not very much

[1:16:01] money. And why is that? Because we've

[1:16:04] kept taxes flat. We've kept taxes flat.

[1:16:06] We've kept taxes

[1:16:08] flat. And what that does in the word

[1:16:11] defer is essentially kick the can down

[1:16:13] the road. And all we're doing is we're

[1:16:15] making future councils and we're making

[1:16:17] future department heads and future

[1:16:19] cities manager

[1:16:21] their job much more difficult in the

[1:16:23] future by not having a secured source of

[1:16:26] revenue. And I don't feel that having to

[1:16:30] go out for voted levies to run this city

[1:16:33] is ever going to serve the members of

[1:16:35] this community in any way, shape, or

[1:16:37] form. I think that's wrought with

[1:16:40] trouble. I think it's something that

[1:16:42] maybe works once, maybe doesn't work

[1:16:44] again. What if suddenly we don't pass

[1:16:46] our fire department levy

[1:16:49] and half our firefighters go away and

[1:16:50] we've got an empty station north of the

[1:16:52] vioduct? That didn't serve our community

[1:16:55] very well in my opinion. I guess I mean

[1:16:57] and I understand the keeping flat and

[1:16:59] I've voted for that for the last five

[1:17:02] budgets in a row. I mean I've been with

[1:17:04] everybody on that. But the other thing

[1:17:06] I've learned over all the times I've

[1:17:08] been through budgets is when you have an

[1:17:11] opportunity to increase revenues, build

[1:17:14] reserves, and it has minimal impact on

[1:17:16] the taxpayers, that's the best times to

[1:17:18] do it. We have been very very good

[1:17:21] fiscal stewards when times are tough to

[1:17:24] take as much out of the budget as we can

[1:17:26] and make things as palatable and as less

[1:17:30] painful as we possibly can for people.

[1:17:33] So I just can't support the five mills

[1:17:35] and I think like I say I find 10 to be a

[1:17:38] compromise. So

[1:17:41] >> thank you Andy. Further comments? There

[1:17:43] is a motion on the table to

[1:17:45] >> Mayor, may I?

[1:17:47] >> Oh, just happy. I'm sorry.

[1:17:48] >> That's okay. I was uh waiting for

[1:17:51] councelor Sweeney to say his piece, but

[1:17:54] that's okay. Uh first of all, I want to

[1:17:57] thank Dana Laney and all of the staff,

[1:18:00] the tremendous amount of work that went

[1:18:02] into producing this budget. So, I

[1:18:04] resonate what the councelor Davis has

[1:18:06] said to that to that point, producing

[1:18:09] not only a budget, but also to keep the

[1:18:13] city uh financially healthy along the

[1:18:17] years. For the record, I'm comfortable

[1:18:20] supporting the five mill compromise of

[1:18:23] this budget. I still have reservations

[1:18:26] about collecting

[1:18:28] uh additional taxes today primarily out

[1:18:31] of concern that future legislation might

[1:18:34] restrict the city's flexibility.

[1:18:37] For that reason, I will not support if

[1:18:40] there is a a new motion later. I will

[1:18:43] not support the 10 meals or anything

[1:18:46] more than five meals. That's a

[1:18:48] compromise that I can support uh within

[1:18:52] this council. Finally, I I believe that

[1:18:55] taxing authority is not really a use it

[1:19:00] or lose it coupon. If we don't need the

[1:19:02] money today, we should not collect it

[1:19:05] from the taxpayers today. Thank you.

[1:19:09] >> Thank you, Jeppi. Further comments from

[1:19:11] the council. There is a motion again on

[1:19:14] the table. Motion by councelor Cornell,

[1:19:17] seconded by councelor Davis to adopt the

[1:19:21] budget as presented in addition to

[1:19:25] resolutions 25-33

[1:19:28] which are our assessments and tax

[1:19:31] levies.

[1:19:32] All those in favor please raise your

[1:19:34] hand.

[1:19:36] All those opposed like sign.

[1:19:39] And we have councelor Cornell Calabiano

[1:19:42] and Davis voting in favor. Councilors

[1:19:45] Sweeney, Fury, and Norton voting in

[1:19:47] opposition, and I'm going to go ahead

[1:19:48] and vote against the motion.

[1:19:51] With that said, I would entertain a

[1:19:53] second motion.

[1:19:56] >> Andy, Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion

[1:19:58] that we approve the fiscal year 27

[1:20:00] budget, and we would do that adopting

[1:20:02] alternative number three as presented to

[1:20:05] us a week ago, this past Thursday,

[1:20:08] and that includes capturing 10 of our

[1:20:10] carryover mills.

[1:20:12] >> Is there a second to the motion?

[1:20:13] Seconded by councelor Norton. Further

[1:20:15] discussion.

[1:20:18] All those in favor, please raise your

[1:20:20] hand. Those opposed like sign.

[1:20:24] And I will vote in favor of the motion.

[1:20:25] And that motion does uh pass on a

[1:20:28] majority vote of the city council. We're

[1:20:30] going to go ahead and take a five minute

[1:20:32] break

[1:20:34] and we'll reconvene at about

[1:20:37] I can't see the clock but about 8:30 I

[1:20:39] think. So thanks everyone.

[1:20:41] >> Do you need do you need glasses? I've

[1:20:43] got him.

[1:31:18] I'm going to go ahead and call this

[1:31:19] meeting back to order if folks don't

[1:31:21] mind taking their seats.

[1:31:24] And Jeppi, you're still with us. Thank

[1:31:26] you. We'll move on to consideration to

[1:31:28] adopt the water master plan and

[1:31:30] wastewater master plan. We'll start with

[1:31:33] resolution 26-34.

[1:31:36] And Craig, if you don't mind, can I take

[1:31:38] one staff report and public hearing on

[1:31:41] both resolutions?

[1:31:43] >> That would be excellent.

[1:31:45] >> In fact, I'm sorry, Craig.

[1:31:47] >> I was going to say I wrote it as one

[1:31:48] staff report.

[1:31:49] >> Okay. With individual. We have one staff

[1:31:51] report and closed in the packet which

[1:31:53] will be for resolution 26-34 which I

[1:31:56] just stated as well as adopting the 2026

[1:31:59] city of Whitefish wastewater and storm

[1:32:02] water master plan. And I'll turn it over

[1:32:04] to our public works director, Greg

[1:32:07] Workman. Thanks Greg.

[1:32:08] >> Uh thank you and good evening. Um I'll

[1:32:11] also note that Lizzy's here, our deputy

[1:32:13] public works director and Allan who's

[1:32:15] introduced himself already. So, if

[1:32:16] there's questions I can't answer or

[1:32:18] comments that um they would like to

[1:32:20] address, I just um ask that they have

[1:32:23] the floor if possible. Uh so, I I did do

[1:32:27] a staff report for both resolutions. I'm

[1:32:29] going to um minimize this because you

[1:32:32] have quite a few pages of actual plan in

[1:32:35] your packet. Um and I can see a number

[1:32:39] of uh public that likely want to

[1:32:40] comment. So, um I'll give you the

[1:32:43] cliffnotes version of my staff report.

[1:32:45] Uh the city is committed to providing

[1:32:47] the people of Whitefish with safe,

[1:32:48] dependable, and affordable water and

[1:32:50] sewer services now and into the future.

[1:32:54] To ensure that commitment is met and to

[1:32:55] provide relevant information for the

[1:32:57] city's recently adopted growth policy,

[1:33:00] the public works department has

[1:33:01] completed the 2026 water master plan and

[1:33:04] the 2026 wastewater and storm water

[1:33:06] master plan.

[1:33:08] Uh the water master plan is intended to

[1:33:10] serve as the city's strategic blueprint

[1:33:12] for managing its public water system

[1:33:14] over the next 20 years. Uh it's broken

[1:33:17] into several sections with

[1:33:18] recommendations. Uh water supply and

[1:33:21] treatment is the first. Uh there are

[1:33:24] four major recommendations uh including

[1:33:28] the increased usage of Whitefish Lake

[1:33:30] water uh for our supply. uh skated

[1:33:33] controlled actuated valve installation

[1:33:35] to manage consumption from Haskell

[1:33:37] Creek. Uh continued investigation into

[1:33:40] potential groundwater or other water

[1:33:42] supply sources that will affect um or

[1:33:45] less affected by climate factors and

[1:33:48] taking continuing to take steps to

[1:33:50] reduce water usage through conservation.

[1:33:53] Um, in the water storage section, um,

[1:33:56] there are, uh, five individual

[1:33:59] recommendations,

[1:34:00] uh, including the completion of the

[1:34:02] South White Fish water capacity project,

[1:34:04] which I will say is is well underway

[1:34:06] with, um, the construction of the new

[1:34:09] milliong tank and the water man in 18th

[1:34:11] Street. Um, investigation of potential

[1:34:14] leakage from the raw water reservoir at

[1:34:16] the water plant. investigating valve

[1:34:18] closures throughout uh the transmission

[1:34:21] mains, electrical and instrument and

[1:34:23] control uh improvements at the upper and

[1:34:26] lower grouse tanks and the mountain

[1:34:28] booster stations and tanks uh to allow

[1:34:32] remote monitoring and control. Uh

[1:34:34] there's also a system on distribution

[1:34:37] system analysis

[1:34:39] um which includes the reconstruction of

[1:34:40] the Sunrest booster station

[1:34:42] investigation of Wait a second.

[1:34:46] Sorry, I think I duplicated some of

[1:34:48] that. Um so the last section was um

[1:34:50] water storage and distribution analysis

[1:34:54] um which also includes the continuation

[1:34:56] of our annual pipe replacement program.

[1:34:59] Uh the wastewater and storm water master

[1:35:01] plan um has a detailed overview of the

[1:35:04] wastewater system

[1:35:06] uh as well as the wastewater treatment

[1:35:08] plant. I'm not going to go into all of

[1:35:10] those re recommendations, but there are

[1:35:11] seven recommendations for um the

[1:35:14] wastewater treatment plant, three

[1:35:16] recommendations on the wastewater

[1:35:18] collection system,

[1:35:20] um and four uh lift station capital

[1:35:23] improvement projects.

[1:35:25] Uh and finally, the storm water system.

[1:35:28] um plan is part of that wastewater plan

[1:35:32] uh which includes two key projects and

[1:35:34] two additional recommendations.

[1:35:36] I'm happy to go into more detail on any

[1:35:38] of that, but ultimately it is the

[1:35:40] recommendation of the public works

[1:35:42] department that we hold a public hearing

[1:35:43] to consider the two resolutions you just

[1:35:45] mentioned, which I believe were 2634 and

[1:35:48] 35.

[1:35:50] >> Thank you, Craig. Any questions for our

[1:35:52] public works director or deputy director

[1:35:55] or Alan Went who's here from AE2s?

[1:36:00] Rebecca.

[1:36:02] >> Yeah, Craig. Um, I'm just going through

[1:36:05] the sheet that you left us about the um

[1:36:10] the the public comments that we got and

[1:36:15] um could you just explain

[1:36:18] I guess I'm a little confused about the

[1:36:23] is it called an actuator

[1:36:25] valve and that would be placed at the

[1:36:28] intake versus telemetry because people

[1:36:31] that that would like us to monitor the

[1:36:35] discharge from Second and Third Creek

[1:36:37] would prefer telemetry so it's more

[1:36:40] accurate. But how far away would the te

[1:36:43] telemetry placement be from where these

[1:36:47] actuator valves are placed?

[1:36:51] >> Um so the the the remote telemetry

[1:36:54] project that's recommended um through

[1:36:57] the public comment that we received

[1:36:58] would be at the intakes themselves. So

[1:37:00] up in the watershed at second and third

[1:37:03] creeks um the actuated valve that we are

[1:37:06] proposing and is a recommendation from

[1:37:08] the master plan would be at the plant

[1:37:10] itself at the essentially at the hydro

[1:37:13] plant um just at the influent to the raw

[1:37:17] water reservoir. So it would still use

[1:37:20] um instrument and controls to run that

[1:37:23] actuated valve u based on the level in

[1:37:26] the raw water pond, but it wouldn't

[1:37:28] require um the power source, the remote

[1:37:32] telemetry and um the the valving up at

[1:37:36] the intakes themselves.

[1:37:38] >> How how far away is that te telemetry

[1:37:41] site from where the reservoir is?

[1:37:44] >> Uh like a long

[1:37:46] >> feet. I don't know. It's It's over a

[1:37:48] mile.

[1:37:49] >> Oh, it's over a mile. Okay. And then um

[1:37:53] the other thing that they said is that

[1:37:56] there's a presumption that we're wasting

[1:37:59] at least 30% of the water. Um but do we

[1:38:03] at some point need to start accumulating

[1:38:06] that data to see how much we are

[1:38:10] actually spilling and letting go to

[1:38:13] back?

[1:38:14] >> We do have that data. Okay.

[1:38:15] >> Um that that 30% is based on an annual

[1:38:18] average. And so we spill a considerable

[1:38:20] amount of water um during the higher

[1:38:23] precipitation and higher runoff times of

[1:38:25] the year. Um we don't spill much if any

[1:38:29] water from the reservoir during you know

[1:38:31] these low flow times.

[1:38:34] >> Okay. And then um

[1:38:37] you're recommending that the 2026

[1:38:41] um water master plan

[1:38:45] what that we actually evaluate how the

[1:38:47] reservoir is leaking but you don't have

[1:38:50] any plans for that currently. Correct.

[1:38:53] >> Uh we don't have

[1:38:56] we have money for it in the fiscal um 27

[1:39:00] budget. Uh but we don't have anybody

[1:39:02] lined up to do the actual tracer test.

[1:39:04] Correct.

[1:39:05] >> All right. And uh

[1:39:09] the possibility of the wells having

[1:39:13] ground groundwater support around the

[1:39:17] reservoir. Is that the idea is that you

[1:39:19] would use groundwater to supplement the

[1:39:22] reservoir? Um, I guess I'd rather that

[1:39:26] come up in public comment so the the

[1:39:28] individual making that request could explain that.

[1:39:32] >> Okay. And then the I guess this is just

[1:39:34] a general question that I don't know is

[1:39:37] when there's a lot lot in there about

[1:39:40] what our water rights and the golf

[1:39:43] courses water rights. Um, but what I

[1:39:46] don't know is if we use up all the

[1:39:50] water, even if we have the water rights

[1:39:52] to do that, causing damage downstream

[1:39:56] where there are actually dry creek

[1:39:58] breads that harm someone else's

[1:40:01] property, are we liable in some way?

[1:40:06] >> I don't know that I can answer that. I

[1:40:08] mean, we have we have a right to take

[1:40:11] the water from the state of Montana. Um,

[1:40:14] I don't know that the water rights speak

[1:40:16] specifically towards downgrade

[1:40:18] degradation or downstream degradation.

[1:40:21] >> Does our attorney have any comment on

[1:40:23] that?

[1:40:25] >> I don't. Okay. All right. Thank you.

[1:40:28] That's all for now.

[1:40:29] >> We're we're a junior water right holder.

[1:40:32] Um, the former Vorman Ranch is the

[1:40:35] senior water right holder for that

[1:40:37] basin. So unless there's a a call that's

[1:40:40] made by the senior water right user

[1:40:44] which I believe is Johnny Shocky now um

[1:40:47] no

[1:40:49] in answer to your question.

[1:40:51] >> So John are you mayor Mofeld are you

[1:40:53] saying that whoever has a senior right

[1:40:56] unless they create an issue and require

[1:40:59] us to change our water consumption that

[1:41:02] nothing is legally um li we're not

[1:41:06] liable in any way. Was that

[1:41:08] >> that's correct because I think public

[1:41:09] works has done an adequate job of

[1:41:11] monitoring the inflow rates to

[1:41:14] demonstrate that we're meeting our water

[1:41:16] right permit and our claims on both

[1:41:20] Second and Third Creek. So unless that

[1:41:23] were to be exceeded, there is no valid

[1:41:27] claim or complaint to be made.

[1:41:30] >> Sure. Additional questions for Craig?

[1:41:35] Not seeing any. We did advertise for a

[1:41:37] public hearing on what will be both

[1:41:38] resolutions 26-

[1:41:42] 34 as well as 35.

[1:41:45] Any public comment this evening? And I

[1:41:47] will limit public comment this evening

[1:41:48] to three minutes in the spirit of

[1:41:51] running an efficient meeting. We've had

[1:41:53] a long week here as counselor. So please

[1:41:56] respect the three minute rule. John,

[1:42:04] » I'll try my best to keep it under three

[1:42:07] minutes. Um, first of all, um, here on

[1:42:09] behalf of the Haskell Bas and Watershed

[1:42:11] Council,

[1:42:12] you know that we are supporters of the

[1:42:16] um the radio telemetry system and we

[1:42:20] believe that's something that the city

[1:42:21] should be pursuing. I've got hearing

[1:42:23] aids on tonight. They were not working

[1:42:25] so I missed an awful lot of what Craig

[1:42:27] said. So I may say something that that

[1:42:30] is has already been corrected and if so

[1:42:34] I'm I apologize for that. When I was

[1:42:37] last involved uh a few weeks ago at a

[1:42:41] budget meeting, there was discussion

[1:42:43] about the cost of a telemetry system and I think the council decided they

[1:42:48] didn't have good solid information on

[1:42:49] that. And I believe the decision was to

[1:42:53] um leave $100,000 in the water budget

[1:42:58] for the purpose of kind of fleshing out

[1:43:01] what it was truly going to cost, the

[1:43:02] full cost of a telemetry system. Is that

[1:43:06] seem correct to you folks,

[1:43:11] >> Craig?

[1:43:12] >> Uh there was money council directed us

[1:43:15] to put money in the fiscal 27 budget to

[1:43:18] further analyze the telemetry system

[1:43:20] $50,000

[1:43:22] >> and it is in there.

[1:43:23] >> Thank you.

[1:43:24] >> Okay, that thank you. Um

[1:43:28] and I noticed it was in the budget so

[1:43:30] that's great. Right now, the master plan

[1:43:35] analyzes whether or not a telemetry

[1:43:37] system would be appropriate and then I

[1:43:40] believe decides no, it's not going to be

[1:43:42] appropriate. So, right now, I think the

[1:43:44] master plan says no to that. And it

[1:43:48] sounds like if if you budgeted

[1:43:51] potentially $100,000 to investigate

[1:43:55] um further, it would be good to rewrite

[1:43:57] that portion of the report simply to

[1:44:01] show that that the city hasn't closed

[1:44:03] the door on the telemetry system that

[1:44:06] it's going to be investigated over the

[1:44:07] next fiscal year.

[1:44:10] But that would take a change to the

[1:44:11] actual language of the of the master

[1:44:14] plan.

[1:44:19] Um,

[1:44:22] considering the number of minutes, I um

[1:44:25] I'll race through a few things that um

[1:44:30] I had wanted to say something about the community's dedication to to clean

[1:44:37] water and healthy water systems and

[1:44:41] productive lakes and rivers and streams.

[1:44:44] When I moved to town, I learned right

[1:44:46] away that this community really cared

[1:44:48] about water quality. And having lived

[1:44:52] here now 32 years, I've heard it over

[1:44:54] and over and over that the community

[1:44:56] really cares. Um, I was worked with the

[1:45:00] city for 15 years and attended 15 years

[1:45:02] worth of council meetings and I heard it

[1:45:04] there from council members and mayors

[1:45:07] and audience and staff. And so I I I

[1:45:10] want to believe that. And um the new

[1:45:14] community plan that you adopted just

[1:45:16] recently

[1:45:18] says basically that it says this is at

[1:45:21] the intro. We will demonstrate

[1:45:23] environmental stewardship and maintain

[1:45:25] and improve our natural resources.

[1:45:28] Whitefish is defined by its natural

[1:45:30] environment. It had a water quality goal

[1:45:34] of number two and that was maintain and

[1:45:36] improve water quality of the Whitefish

[1:45:38] area's lakes, rivers, groundwater, and

[1:45:40] streams.

[1:45:42] During the visioning process, a

[1:45:44] community overwhelmingly responded. The

[1:45:46] top three most important features to

[1:45:48] protect were the White Fish River, White

[1:45:50] Fish Lake, and overall water quality.

[1:45:53] And I guess that to me is is the most

[1:45:58] important thing for me to say tonight.

[1:46:00] I'm hoping that sentiment is still alive

[1:46:03] and well. Um, it's obvious and I think

[1:46:07] the evidence is obvious that that Second

[1:46:10] Creek and Third Creek are being

[1:46:11] dewatered um a lot sometimes for months

[1:46:15] at a time. Um,

[1:46:18] that's not that's just not consistent

[1:46:21] with a community and a a city council or

[1:46:24] a city entity that that believes

[1:46:26] strongly in maintaining uh water

[1:46:29] quality. If Um, you've got to have water quality. And if there's no

[1:46:33] water in those creeks, um, we can't even

[1:46:36] talk about water quality. So, I'm hoping

[1:46:39] that that sentiment remains and that you

[1:46:44] will continue to look long and hard and

[1:46:46] we will present to you long and hard um

[1:46:49] further facts about why we really need

[1:46:52] the telemetry system and then we need to

[1:46:55] um make sure that second and third creek

[1:46:58] receive adequate water. So, I think my

[1:47:01] three minutes were long past up. Thank

[1:47:03] you.

[1:47:03] >> Thank you, John. Appreciate it. Who's

[1:47:06] next? Samantha.

[1:47:12] » Good evening, honorable mayor and

[1:47:14] council members. My name is Samantha

[1:47:15] Tapenbeck. I'm the resource

[1:47:17] conservationist for Flathead

[1:47:19] Conservation District. Flathead

[1:47:21] conservation district has been the

[1:47:23] administrative sponsor of the Haskell

[1:47:25] Basin Watershed Council since it was

[1:47:28] formed in 2000.

[1:47:30] Flathead CD submitted a letter of

[1:47:33] support of the Haskell Basin Watershed

[1:47:36] Council's report summarizing their

[1:47:38] concerns and recommendations to the

[1:47:41] city. I believe you all have that letter

[1:47:43] with their report. I'm here today just

[1:47:45] to reiterate that support and urge you

[1:47:48] to consider this opportunity to advance

[1:47:51] the stewardship of Haskell Basin wershed

[1:47:54] through proactive management of the

[1:47:56] municipal water system. We ask that the

[1:47:59] council consider adopting the following

[1:48:01] management priorities into this 20-year

[1:48:04] water master plan to work towards

[1:48:07] maximizing efficiency and conserving

[1:48:09] water use in existing infrastructure of

[1:48:13] the municipal water system to minimize

[1:48:15] impacts to the creek and a commitment to

[1:48:18] being responsive to uncertain climate

[1:48:21] conditions by building in resiliency to

[1:48:24] the existing infrastructure.

[1:48:26] Flathead Conservation District supports

[1:48:28] the Haskell Basin Watershed Council's

[1:48:30] position that greater efficiency and

[1:48:32] more responsive management of the

[1:48:34] resource could be accomplished with

[1:48:36] installation of a remote radio telemetry

[1:48:39] system for real-time monitoring of

[1:48:42] conditions and adjustments at the

[1:48:44] diversions on second and third creek

[1:48:47] creeks. Uh thank you for the opportunity

[1:48:50] to comment and I'll make myself

[1:48:51] available for questions if helpful.

[1:48:54] >> Thanks Samantha. Appreciate you coming

[1:48:56] tonight, Mike.

[1:49:08] Mayor, city council, Mike Copel,

[1:49:10] director of the White Fish Lake

[1:49:11] Institute. We submitted written comments

[1:49:13] for your review. I just want to touch

[1:49:16] upon two main points tonight. Uh, number

[1:49:19] one is that this is a really good

[1:49:22] engineering report. In fact, your

[1:49:23] engineering team of Craig, Lizzy, Allan

[1:49:27] are awesome uh for this community and we value that. The problem is this

[1:49:33] is an engineering report whereas this is

[1:49:35] a joint engineering and natural resource

[1:49:38] management uh scenario, right? So, we

[1:49:41] can't just look at the engineering fixes

[1:49:44] without addressing the natural resource

[1:49:46] concerns. So you pull out a thread in

[1:49:48] the engineering realm and and you're

[1:49:50] going to start to unravel other things

[1:49:52] and I think you heard that through some

[1:49:54] of the written comment. So for me this

[1:49:57] is a plan for the next 20 years right

[1:50:01] and so I fall back on what's the worst

[1:50:05] case scenario so the most important

[1:50:07] service that we provide to residents is

[1:50:11] municipal drinking water right so does

[1:50:14] this plan adequate adequately address

[1:50:16] the whatifs right the plausible whatifs

[1:50:19] and so I itemized in my response to you

[1:50:23] a couple of them number One is a

[1:50:25] catastrophic fire up second and third

[1:50:28] creek, right? Which is reasonable,

[1:50:30] feasible in in my mind, especially here

[1:50:33] in Ed and and we all know what happened

[1:50:35] in Spokane this year. And when that

[1:50:37] happens, we can get hydrophobic soils,

[1:50:39] we can get increased uh water yield,

[1:50:42] sediment delivery, basically taking

[1:50:44] those intake diversion structures

[1:50:46] offline.

[1:50:47] uh post that um there might be a taste

[1:50:50] and odor issue making the water

[1:50:53] unpalatable for municipal consumption.

[1:50:56] Right. The other thing is um you know

[1:51:00] we're doing our darn it darnest to keep

[1:51:03] zebra and quaga muscles out of Whitefish

[1:51:05] Lake, a very aggressive uh watercraft

[1:51:07] inspection program. Thanks to you all

[1:51:09] and Maria and Carla for doing a great

[1:51:11] job on the ground. Um but there's no

[1:51:14] guarantees, right? So what happens then?

[1:51:17] So we could get uh zebra muscles

[1:51:20] colonizing the water intake pipe

[1:51:22] partially or totally oluding that pipe.

[1:51:25] Their microscopic life form can get

[1:51:27] sucked up to the water treatment plant

[1:51:29] for which they could then colonize

[1:51:32] infrastructure there. So I guess what

[1:51:35] I'm saying is this plan falls short in

[1:51:38] terms of the long-term game, right? So

[1:51:43] we need to consider certain mitigation

[1:51:46] strategies because if something happens

[1:51:49] between now and within the next 20

[1:51:52] years, you know, what management options

[1:51:54] will you have to use as tools to

[1:51:58] continue providing service to the

[1:52:00] residents of Whitefish? So, uh, you

[1:52:03] know, there's a couple things I

[1:52:04] suggested. You know, Craig alluded to

[1:52:05] the the groundwater wells, so I think

[1:52:08] that that was that was me, right? So

[1:52:10] I've advocated for potential deep

[1:52:12] groundwater wells uh near the water

[1:52:15] intake uh diversion structures right so

[1:52:18] that water can be incorporated uh and

[1:52:20] blended upstream right of the hydro

[1:52:23] plant. So there'd be some cost recovery

[1:52:26] in using that water. Number one there's

[1:52:28] known chemistry. There are some

[1:52:30] chemistry concerns with hardness and

[1:52:32] other things and concerns with lead

[1:52:36] dissolution in our infrastructure. Well,

[1:52:38] the next 20 years we should also be

[1:52:40] working very hard to get rid of that

[1:52:41] lead infrastructure, right? So, um I

[1:52:45] guess the moral of the story is if deep

[1:52:47] groundwater wells uphill of the water

[1:52:50] treatment plant aren't feasible from an

[1:52:52] engineering perspective, show me what

[1:52:54] third water source is feasible for the

[1:52:57] city. And we need to itemize that now

[1:52:59] and work towards it with a tangible plan

[1:53:01] rather than have a 20-year plan and then

[1:53:04] be here in 20 years with, you know, um

[1:53:08] not attaining that goal. So um it's a

[1:53:11] great engineering plan. Again, great

[1:53:13] people have worked on this. I'm just

[1:53:14] saying let's pause. Let's go back to the

[1:53:17] table. And again, this is a a

[1:53:21] combination engineering and natural

[1:53:23] resource issue. So let's address it that

[1:53:25] way. So thank you.

[1:53:27] >> Thank you, Mike.

[1:53:29] Additional public comments.

[1:53:34] Deputy

[1:53:37] always

[1:53:42] » honorable honorable mayor and council

[1:53:45] Richard Iner 104th Street Whitefish

[1:53:48] Montana. Uh let me begin by saying

[1:53:51] Samantha I really appreciate your

[1:53:53] comments. I think you um hit the nail on

[1:53:56] the head as it were. Uh couple of

[1:53:58] things. Uh, one is, uh, we have the

[1:54:03] technology, we have I sounded like in

[1:54:05] the budget the money to, um, put a

[1:54:09] impermeable mat in the reservoir and get

[1:54:12] rid of or eliminate that leakage, uh, in

[1:54:16] our reservoir. And so, uh, if there's

[1:54:18] money, we should spend it on that and

[1:54:20] get that job done. Two, uh, remote

[1:54:24] telemetry, uh, is a pro proven

[1:54:26] technology. We've been discussing it

[1:54:28] with regards to Haskell Basin for quite

[1:54:31] some time and uh I think now is the time

[1:54:34] to initiate that uh program. Um the

[1:54:41] third point is

[1:54:44] do we have the

[1:54:46] right

[1:54:48] I don't know how else to phrase it to

[1:54:51] dewater

[1:54:53] streams and in essence destroy

[1:54:58] the repairarian habitat including the

[1:55:01] cutthroat trout that might live in it.

[1:55:04] Um and I I think that it is uh important

[1:55:08] that we keep stream flow uh in second

[1:55:11] and third

[1:55:13] creeks and a telemetry system would go a

[1:55:18] long ways towards getting that done.

[1:55:20] Number four, uh as I said, we've been

[1:55:22] talking about this for a long long time.

[1:55:24] I think it's time now 15 years and now

[1:55:29] is the time to stop stop talking and um

[1:55:32] start acting. Thank you.

[1:55:36] >> Thank you, Richard. Ed,

[1:55:43] » if you don't mind, Alan, after Ed

[1:55:49] Liser, 1355 Lion Mountain Drive. Um, I

[1:55:53] don't speak here very often and to do it

[1:55:55] twice in one night is unprecedented, but

[1:55:59] this is an issue that I feel very

[1:56:02] strongly about. And I think um I' I'd

[1:56:05] like to basically reiterate u some of

[1:56:08] what's been said already. And I think I

[1:56:11] would take Richard's comment right at

[1:56:13] the end very seriously. Do we have the

[1:56:16] right to alter an ecosystem?

[1:56:23] You know, I appreciate the comments that

[1:56:26] and the hearing that you had on the

[1:56:28] budget and it it makes me appreciate the

[1:56:31] challenge and that you have trying to

[1:56:35] fiscally manage this very important

[1:56:39] resource that you know and for the for

[1:56:42] the good of the public. But

[1:56:45] um there's a cost to living here and I I

[1:56:50] strongly believe that we have to pay the

[1:56:54] price and if it costs us more to take

[1:56:58] care of our ecosystem, our aquatic

[1:57:01] resource, that's got to be our highest

[1:57:05] priority

[1:57:07] and it's the cost of living here. So,

[1:57:11] um, again, I want to reiterate what's

[1:57:13] been said. I support the

[1:57:16] concept of the telemetry, um, system. I

[1:57:20] hope you'll seriously consider that um,

[1:57:24] in the review of the master plan. Thank

[1:57:27] you so much.

[1:57:33] » Thank you, Ed Allen.

[1:57:36] >> Thanks again for letting me speak before

[1:57:37] you. Um I just want to touch a few bases

[1:57:40] here. Um I am the design engineer for

[1:57:43] this this report and we work very

[1:57:45] closely with the city in a in a kind of

[1:57:47] a tight box. But I want to talk about

[1:57:49] the water master plan itself. We talk

[1:57:51] about a 20-year planning horizon. Those

[1:57:54] elements are not set in stone for 20

[1:57:56] years. Uh every year the city will come

[1:57:59] back and they'll look at the CIPs and

[1:58:01] decide is this appropriate this year and

[1:58:03] they might move up and down in order of

[1:58:05] importance or if something comes up they

[1:58:07] may add one or or they could come along

[1:58:09] and they could say we need to do an

[1:58:10] update uh to this plan in two years or

[1:58:13] four years. Usually you see your

[1:58:15] municipalities update them every five

[1:58:17] years. So it's not set in stone. It's

[1:58:20] actually a living document. Uh we typ

[1:58:22] typically call it draft because they're

[1:58:24] never finalized. Um that said, moving

[1:58:27] on, I think people need to understand

[1:58:30] the cost of

[1:58:32] using less Haskell Creek water. Uh

[1:58:37] you're going to lose

[1:58:39] uh revenue from the hydro plant. If

[1:58:42] you've got to pump it back up the hill,

[1:58:44] you've got to pay those charges. Uh the

[1:58:46] lake water, while very good quality, is

[1:58:48] not pristine quality like Haskell.

[1:58:50] You're going to have to treat harder,

[1:58:52] use more chemicals. The water's warmer,

[1:58:54] the reactions

[1:58:56] require more chemicals yet. You're going

[1:58:58] to have more backwash. A lot of cost

[1:59:00] associated with those and I don't think

[1:59:02] people realize what that's going to be.

[1:59:05] Um, and I would love for there to be all

[1:59:09] the water in Haskell Creek forever, but

[1:59:12] I think the city's going to have some

[1:59:13] difficult choices and and it

[1:59:15] unfortunately is going to come down to

[1:59:16] an economic analysis.

[1:59:19] Do you have the the economic fortitude

[1:59:22] to uh quit using Haskell Creek water or

[1:59:26] use less Haskell Creek water. Um, and

[1:59:29] you know, the initial numbers I'm

[1:59:31] looking at aren't very promising for the

[1:59:33] city. It's going to be a tough pill to

[1:59:35] swallow. Um, a few other things to talk

[1:59:38] about here. Uh, wells. Wells are a

[1:59:41] little bit risky. There's no guarantee

[1:59:42] that you're going to get any kind of a

[1:59:44] yield out of them if you want. You can

[1:59:45] ask a big amount of water that they've

[1:59:46] drilled a couple of dry holes in the

[1:59:48] last 10 years. Um, but if you could, um,

[1:59:52] that's an excellent source and you've

[1:59:53] got it above the treatment plant. So

[1:59:55] hopefully you're not pumping far. There

[1:59:57] are water chemistry issues whether you

[1:59:59] use it for potable water and and you'd

[2:00:02] have to add on or build a separate

[2:00:04] treatment plant before you blend it with

[2:00:06] your existing surface water. Um or

[2:00:09] potentially you could use it to augment

[2:00:11] Haskell Creek itself. Um that has some

[2:00:14] inherent advantages and disadvantages.

[2:00:16] You got a water chemistry issue again.

[2:00:18] Um but it is cold water and could help

[2:00:21] offset the warming of of the creek

[2:00:23] itself.

[2:00:25] Uh, I do want to acknowledge the the

[2:00:28] fantastic work that Haskell Basin

[2:00:31] Commission has done, the conservation

[2:00:33] district has done through the years with

[2:00:35] Haskell Creek. When I was a kid, it it

[2:00:38] was a cow pond from one end to the other

[2:00:42] through Borman's and they've done an

[2:00:44] outstanding job of revitating,

[2:00:47] reforesting. Um, so this is this is a

[2:00:51] tough decision. Um, I've been tasked

[2:00:54] looking at it only from an engineering

[2:00:55] standpoint, but

[2:00:58] here we are. This is where the sausage

[2:01:00] gets made.

[2:01:02] So, thank you.

[2:01:03] >> Thank you, Alan. Appreciate you

[2:01:04] attending this evening. Further public

[2:01:07] comments?

[2:01:09] Michelle, anyone online?

[2:01:14] » For those of you who are online, if

[2:01:16] you'd like to speak towards either the

[2:01:17] water master plan or the wastewater and

[2:01:20] storm water master plan, please raise

[2:01:22] your hand.

[2:01:28] We're good.

[2:01:29] >> Go ahead and close the public hearing

[2:01:31] and I'll start with comments from the

[2:01:33] council. I'll start with Jeppi since he

[2:01:36] is joining us remotely. Any comments,

[2:01:38] Jeppy?

[2:01:39] >> Uh, mayor, I do not have a comment, but

[2:01:42] I know that we asked questions ahead of

[2:01:44] time to the staff. Can I ask a question

[2:01:46] to Craig after listening to the public

[2:01:49] comments?

[2:01:50] >> Of course. All right, Craig. Uh, I don't

[2:01:54] want to go into the weeds. All I want to

[2:01:56] understand high level is and I use terms

[2:02:00] that I heard or read in your packet. Uh,

[2:02:03] on one hand your plan which is a plan

[2:02:07] and I agree with the people who say it's

[2:02:10] not cast in marble and it's just a high

[2:02:13] level plan and then different decisions

[2:02:16] will be made at different stages. The

[2:02:19] actuator uh valve at the hydrop plant

[2:02:22] regulates how much total water reaches

[2:02:25] the plant but it doesn't tell us how

[2:02:28] much water remains in second and third

[2:02:30] creek or uh allow us to remotely adjust

[2:02:35] those individual diversions where on the

[2:02:38] other side this telemetry proposal would

[2:02:41] uh do that. Am I correct or is and and

[2:02:46] what what is it that makes your approach

[2:02:50] comfortable for yourself and and the

[2:02:52] staff in the city?

[2:02:56] » Yeah, I think you've explained it

[2:02:58] correctly, Jeppe. Um the intent with the

[2:03:00] actuated valve at the water plant would

[2:03:03] be to slow down the water coming from

[2:03:06] second and third creeks and back it up

[2:03:09] into first creek. So it wouldn't the

[2:03:12] water would still be diverted at second

[2:03:14] and third creeks, but it would remain in

[2:03:16] the main stem of Haskell Creek by

[2:03:18] backing it up into First Creek. Um I I

[2:03:22] will say that over the past several

[2:03:24] years, we have continued to allow water

[2:03:27] to overflow at Second and Third Creek.

[2:03:30] Even though you go up there and you look

[2:03:32] at those creeks and they may look dry,

[2:03:34] that water is going underground

[2:03:37] somewhere after the diversions. we are

[2:03:39] spilling water and so we're not taking

[2:03:41] 100% of the water from second and third

[2:03:43] creek. Um but the intent of the actuated

[2:03:46] valve would be would essentially

[2:03:48] accomplish the same goal as the remote

[2:03:50] telemetry and the the gate valves at

[2:03:53] second and third creek. It's just that

[2:03:54] it would back up the water into first

[2:03:57] creek and then meet up with um with the

[2:04:00] main stem of Haskell

[2:04:03] shortly thereafter. Um, I will say,

[2:04:05] Rebecca, in answer to your question

[2:04:07] earlier, I did a just a quick GIS

[2:04:09] measurement. Um, the intake for Third

[2:04:12] Creek is just over two miles from the

[2:04:14] water plant. Um, it would likely the

[2:04:17] signal would likely have to take a

[2:04:19] slightly different route. So, I would

[2:04:21] estimate between two and three miles of

[2:04:24] um of distance in that remote telemetry.

[2:04:28] >> Thank you, Greg. So, so are you saying

[2:04:32] that the telemetry solution would

[2:04:36] address the issue so to speak at its

[2:04:39] head versus at the feet? I'm I'm

[2:04:41] paraphrasing, but there are technical

[2:04:45] challenges and costs that I don't know

[2:04:48] they quantified because when you

[2:04:50] prepared the report, you were not

[2:04:52] comparing two solutions that would make

[2:04:55] it not desirable versus what we are

[2:04:59] proposing.

[2:05:02] » Yeah, I I guess so. I don't know if it's

[2:05:05] necessarily a head versus feet. I mean,

[2:05:07] we we're essentially keeping the water

[2:05:12] that we're not using, you know, to

[2:05:14] prevent it from spilling over at the raw

[2:05:16] water reservoir at the plant in Haskell

[2:05:20] Creek. It's just that it it wouldn't all

[2:05:22] come out of second and third creeks. It

[2:05:24] would go back to First Creek.

[2:05:29] O okay and uh and the other solution the

[2:05:33] remote solution will change that as a a

[2:05:37] structural change. Correct. So we're

[2:05:40] making a choice of where to divert or

[2:05:44] keep the water. It's not just a techn

[2:05:46] technological choice. Am I understanding

[2:05:49] correctly? That

[2:05:50] >> that's a fair statement. Yes.

[2:05:53] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:05:55] >> Thanks Jeppi. We'll start with Ben and

[2:05:57] then Rebecca.

[2:05:59] I do have also one or two questions if I

[2:06:01] could. Um,

[2:06:04] and sorry if I'm a bit of a layman in

[2:06:06] this topic, but make sure my

[2:06:08] understanding is correct. We have three

[2:06:10] creeks, one, two, and three. They all

[2:06:12] join together into the main stem

[2:06:14] whenever we would call that

[2:06:17] creek. Thank you. And then um

[2:06:21] so when we talk about dewater like but

[2:06:23] the first creek we don't use. So there's

[2:06:25] always water coming through through

[2:06:27] first grade essentially. So when so when

[2:06:30] we're talking about dewatering

[2:06:33] what we're actually talking about is the

[2:06:35] distance from the intake to Haskell

[2:06:38] Creek itself that that little stretch.

[2:06:40] It's not Haskell Creek doesn't get

[2:06:43] dewatered because Correct. Yeah. There's

[2:06:46] actually I believe six creeks that feed

[2:06:49] the main stem of Haskell Creek. The city

[2:06:52] has water rights to first, second, and

[2:06:54] third.

[2:06:55] >> We don't use any of the water rights

[2:06:57] from first, and we don't have any water

[2:06:59] rights in fourth through six.

[2:07:02] >> Okay. So, we're really talking about

[2:07:04] that stretch of creek between the intake

[2:07:08] and where it joins into the main stem

[2:07:10] >> for second and third. Correct.

[2:07:12] >> And so, I I pulled up the map which is

[2:07:15] actually in the packet

[2:07:17] on page 264 cares.

[2:07:21] But it looks to me like the intakes are

[2:07:22] actually pretty close to the main stem

[2:07:24] or they're down which would make sense,

[2:07:27] right? So we're not actually talking

[2:07:29] about a lot of

[2:07:32] here. Am I understanding this correctly?

[2:07:34] Okay.

[2:07:46] » Okay.

[2:07:47] Unless I've said something wrong, we can

[2:07:49] move forward then. Okay. Um, and then my

[2:07:52] second question is, ironically, when

[2:07:55] Mike was up here,

[2:07:57] well, when I was going through this plan

[2:07:58] earlier, I made my own note a comment

[2:08:01] that is exactly what Mike's comments

[2:08:03] were, which is, should we further

[2:08:06] explore groundwater to diversify

[2:08:08] ourselves in the event of a wire to

[2:08:10] fire? Um, I'm just curious what your

[2:08:13] thoughts are on that, Craig, if you

[2:08:15] would. Yes, we should and that is a

[2:08:18] recommendation in the report.

[2:08:20] >> Okay.

[2:08:23] So, whatever steps are necessary.

[2:08:25] >> Yeah, I mean it it won't be um an

[2:08:28] inexpensive alternative and there is

[2:08:30] risk uh to mixing groundwater with

[2:08:32] surface water. Um Allan mentioned

[2:08:35] briefly the opportunity perhaps to have

[2:08:38] a well at the intake that pumps directly

[2:08:40] into the creek um to add flow and

[2:08:44] preserve habitat. But that in and of

[2:08:46] itself would also take research and you

[2:08:49] know chemical analysis to make sure that

[2:08:51] groundwater in Haskell Creek isn't going

[2:08:54] to have an adverse you know effect on

[2:08:56] the habitat. Um but I do think it is

[2:09:00] it's worth continued exploration.

[2:09:03] >> Sure.

[2:09:04] >> And what would you think the next steps

[2:09:05] would be in that in that regard?

[2:09:08] Uh, I'm most likely probably drilling

[2:09:10] some um, you know, some test wells to

[2:09:13] see what we could find.

[2:09:15] >> Okay. And that's on the city's radar to

[2:09:17] do in the future.

[2:09:18] >> Um, it's not in the CIP right now, but

[2:09:21] it's something that, you know, based on

[2:09:23] the feedback we've had from this report,

[2:09:25] um, I think we should consider.

[2:09:27] >> I think we should, too.

[2:09:29] >> Thank you.

[2:09:30] >> Thanks, ma'am. Rebecca,

[2:09:33] >> um, could could you comment on Barnes.

[2:09:37] Um

[2:09:40] she's saying there was a CRE Cat

[2:09:45] um climate resilience evaluation and

[2:09:48] awareness tool that she didn't think was

[2:09:51] included in this and um but it it was

[2:09:56] about how climate action would affect

[2:09:58] our water systems, I guess, and the

[2:10:01] financial consequences of a changing

[2:10:04] climate. And I just wondered if

[2:10:07] how we would add that if this got

[2:10:09] adopted tonight.

[2:10:12] >> Um yeah, so we did that climate

[2:10:15] resiliency study um through money uh

[2:10:18] that was provided by EPA back in I think

[2:10:21] 2022.

[2:10:23] >> Um that report had three main findings.

[2:10:27] Um, one was the remote telemetry. Um,

[2:10:32] we're, you know, somehow monitoring flow

[2:10:34] from Haskell that's in this master plan.

[2:10:37] Um, one I believe was the increased

[2:10:40] water storage which is in this master

[2:10:42] plan. And then there was a third um I'm

[2:10:45] sorry, one was the emergency wild uh

[2:10:47] fire response plan which we're working

[2:10:49] on. And then there was a third which was

[2:10:51] fireproofing a building up at the the

[2:10:53] water plant. um which is a fairly

[2:10:56] minimal project. It was estimated about

[2:10:59] $3,000 back in 2022. Um we haven't

[2:11:02] completed that yet, but it's typically

[2:11:04] not something you'd see in a a plan of

[2:11:06] this scale. It's essentially taking a

[2:11:08] building that houses existing controls

[2:11:11] and switching it from a a woodframe

[2:11:14] building to a cinder block building.

[2:11:17] >> So kind of minor in scale. Okay.

[2:11:19] >> Okay. So,

[2:11:20] >> it wouldn't take much to reference this

[2:11:22] plan um this 22 climate resiliency

[2:11:24] evaluation and awareness tool. Um but I

[2:11:28] can tell you that the recommendations

[2:11:30] from that plan are incorporated into the

[2:11:32] 2026 master plan.

[2:11:35] >> So, I called Paul McKenzie today just to

[2:11:38] see how how he felt about um since he's

[2:11:43] on the Haskell Commission if it would

[2:11:46] affect their management of the property

[2:11:48] at all. And he said this has been going

[2:11:51] on such a long time that the creek beds

[2:11:55] are dry a lot of the time anyways. And

[2:11:58] so I'm just wondering

[2:12:00] why have we not actually addressed this

[2:12:03] over the last 15 years if it if it

[2:12:06] perpetually was brought up like what's

[2:12:09] been going on? Like is it just that we

[2:12:12] have such a strong need to provide water

[2:12:15] that we don't that we're prioritizing

[2:12:17] that versus this complaint that we're

[2:12:21] dewatering downstream

[2:12:24] and it doesn't seem to affect us as a

[2:12:28] city

[2:12:29] like it's a big complex

[2:12:31] >> like I'm sorry

[2:12:34] >> like I said before for the last several

[2:12:37] years you know at the request of the

[2:12:38] Haskell Basin

[2:12:40] watershed council. We we have not been

[2:12:42] drying those creeks up. We have been

[2:12:44] spilling water at second and third creek

[2:12:46] and not taking any water from first

[2:12:49] creek. So if there are observed dry beds

[2:12:52] up there, I think it's because that

[2:12:54] water is going underground.

[2:12:59] So it's awkward because they're all

[2:13:02] recommending that we do more and and

[2:13:06] you're basically saying no. And so, but

[2:13:10] so far this plan is that we're going to

[2:13:12] do the actuator valves to start and then

[2:13:15] if that doesn't work, we might go to

[2:13:17] telemetry later.

[2:13:20] Is that a possibility?

[2:13:22] >> Yeah. The way that the plan reads, it

[2:13:23] recommends we proceed with the actuated

[2:13:26] valve at the plant prior to

[2:13:29] um proceeding with with remote

[2:13:32] telemetry. Uh that said, we have

[2:13:34] direction from council to continue to

[2:13:37] evaluate the remote telemetry and come

[2:13:39] up with a a more accurate cost estimate.

[2:13:42] So we will continue to do that.

[2:13:44] >> Okay. So we will have we'll have reports

[2:13:47] about whether or not that's going to

[2:13:49] work and about the drilling and of wells

[2:13:52] and things like that in the future. So,

[2:13:54] I'm I'm bringing this up publicly

[2:13:56] because the public is here and concerned

[2:14:00] and so I just want them to know that we

[2:14:02] are like aware and that we will have

[2:14:05] followup on what they're saying. Is that

[2:14:08] right?

[2:14:10] >> Okay.

[2:14:12] Thank you.

[2:14:13] >> I would entertain a motion.

[2:14:18] » Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the plan as

[2:14:21] presented. Would that be for resolutions

[2:14:24] 26,34 and 35?

[2:14:28] >> Affirmative.

[2:14:29] >> Is there a second to the motion?

[2:14:32] >> Seconded by councelor Davis. Further

[2:14:34] discussion.

[2:14:36] >> Yes. Uh Mr. Mayor, as I said, um this is

[2:14:41] not a plan that is cast in marble and uh

[2:14:46] I I'm okay. I'm I'm um satisfied with

[2:14:51] the current presentation.

[2:14:54] Um

[2:14:56] we can adopt this master plan tonight

[2:14:58] and we can still direct direct the staff

[2:15:01] to in the coming months or year evaluate

[2:15:04] telemetry versus as an additional

[2:15:08] feature. and and you know remote

[2:15:12] communications with satellite

[2:15:14] infrastructure might become much more

[2:15:17] approachable and affordable as

[2:15:19] technology moves forward. So I wouldn't

[2:15:22] be too concerned of what the status quo

[2:15:25] is tonight.

[2:15:28] >> Thank you Jeppi. Further comments

[2:15:32] all those in favor please raise your

[2:15:34] hand. Those opposed like sign and that

[2:15:37] motion does carry unanimously. Thanks

[2:15:39] very much Craig. Thanks folks for coming

[2:15:42] out tonight to provide comments. We'll

[2:15:44] move on to item seven which is

[2:15:46] communications from our finance director

[2:15:48] regarding the 20

[2:15:51] 27 through FY31

[2:15:54] CIP. Laney,

[2:15:56] >> good evening again council and mayor. Um

[2:16:00] we are presenting here the five-year

[2:16:02] capital improvements plan also referred

[2:16:04] to as the CIP for fiscal years 27 2027

[2:16:08] through 2031. This plan document

[2:16:12] planning document identifies needed

[2:16:14] investments in capital facilities and

[2:16:17] equipment that will be maintained by the

[2:16:19] city of Whitefish over the next five

[2:16:21] years for our current and increasing

[2:16:23] population in addition to its

[2:16:25] significant uh seasonal uh population.

[2:16:30] This document outlines the uses of the

[2:16:32] program in such things as planning for

[2:16:34] facilities and infrastructure to

[2:16:36] maintain adequate levels of service and

[2:16:39] to accommodate new growth. The state of

[2:16:41] Montana requires that a capital

[2:16:43] improvement plan be updated every 5

[2:16:45] years. However, the city of Whitefish

[2:16:47] updates the plan annually to ensure

[2:16:50] proper planning for changing

[2:16:51] circumstances.

[2:16:53] Each year, department directors identify

[2:16:55] capital purchases or projects that are

[2:16:58] needed to maintain current levels of

[2:16:59] service or achieve expanded levels of

[2:17:02] service that would accommodate

[2:17:04] anticipated growth. Other steps of the

[2:17:07] process in developing the capital

[2:17:08] improvement plan are outlined on page

[2:17:11] three of the CIP uh which I believe is

[2:17:15] page 667 in your um in your packet with

[2:17:19] the annual outcome of projects

[2:17:21] identified and included in the final

[2:17:23] budget adopted each year. While the

[2:17:26] capital improvement plan document

[2:17:27] encompasses a five-year period, we

[2:17:30] provide details of the planned capital

[2:17:32] expenditures for fiscal year 2027 with

[2:17:35] each within each department.

[2:17:37] Um page 668 of the packet

[2:17:41] um which is page four of the document

[2:17:44] reflects an anticipated five-year outlay

[2:17:47] of 55,568,881.

[2:17:53] Capital purchases may be paid for from a

[2:17:55] variety of funding sources which can

[2:17:57] include grants, impact fees or donations

[2:18:00] or resort tax imposing restrictions for

[2:18:03] which some projects must meet cert uh

[2:18:06] certain requirements.

[2:18:08] Page five of the CIP lists the types of

[2:18:10] funding sources that are utilized when

[2:18:13] appropriate by the city of Whitefish for

[2:18:14] capital purchases.

[2:18:17] When needed, the city council considers

[2:18:19] proposed increases for both water and

[2:18:21] wastewater utility rates to ensure

[2:18:23] proper funding of necessary capital

[2:18:25] improvements for the water and

[2:18:27] wastewater utilities.

[2:18:30] With the completion of the South Water

[2:18:31] Storage and production project, which

[2:18:34] has already begun and is expected to be

[2:18:36] completed by the end of fiscal year 28,

[2:18:39] um future rate increases may be required

[2:18:42] to cover the debt service that will be

[2:18:45] associated with this project.

[2:18:48] Beginning in February of 2025, the

[2:18:50] dedication of resort tax dollars was

[2:18:52] reallocated according to a vote that

[2:18:54] went to the electorate in November of

[2:18:56] 2023.

[2:18:58] 48% [snorts]

[2:18:59] of the 3% reserve tax can be used to

[2:19:01] repair, maintain, and improve streets,

[2:19:03] storm sewers, underground utilities,

[2:19:06] sidewalks, and curbs, and gutters.

[2:19:09] 10% of the 3% can be used for

[2:19:12] improvements and maintenance of bicycle

[2:19:13] and pedestrian paths, and other park

[2:19:15] acquisitions, capital improvements, and

[2:19:18] equipment. This reallocation allows for

[2:19:20] additional funding for streets, parks,

[2:19:22] and paths projects and could be

[2:19:24] leveraged to obtain additional sources

[2:19:26] of funding. With the annual revision of

[2:19:29] the capital improvement plan, the

[2:19:31] progress made toward the completion of

[2:19:33] identified projects is monitored. Each

[2:19:36] year, staff review the projects that

[2:19:38] were accomplished, consider any changes

[2:19:40] in circumstances or economic factors,

[2:19:42] and make necessary updates to the plan.

[2:19:46] On pages 8 through 11 of the CIP, a

[2:19:49] general five-year overview of proposed

[2:19:51] projects and capital purchases by

[2:19:53] department is provided and funding

[2:19:55] sources are identified in the gray lines

[2:19:58] at the end of each departmental listing.

[2:20:02] All items listed in this summary under

[2:20:03] the column titled fiscal year 2027 are

[2:20:06] listed in detail by department in pages

[2:20:09] 14 through 40. We list each purchase or

[2:20:13] project and the pertinent details

[2:20:15] including description, total project

[2:20:17] cost, anticipated useful life, project

[2:20:20] type, and funding source or sources. The

[2:20:23] details are provided only for projects

[2:20:25] slated to be purchased or carried

[2:20:27] forward or begin in fiscal year 27.

[2:20:31] Prior years prior year or year's

[2:20:33] expenditures for projects are reflected

[2:20:36] where applicable as well as anticipated

[2:20:38] costs for the current fiscal year and

[2:20:41] into the next four years of this

[2:20:42] five-year plan. This comprehensive

[2:20:45] capital improvement plan is intended to

[2:20:47] reflect projects and purpose purchases

[2:20:50] considered with intention by department

[2:20:52] directors to be a priority for fiscal

[2:20:55] year 27 and spanning the next five

[2:20:58] years. and staff recommend adoption of

[2:21:00] this fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 31

[2:21:03] capital improvement plan.

[2:21:05] Happy to field any questions or

[2:21:07] feedback.

[2:21:08] >> Thanks Laney. Any questions for Laney or

[2:21:11] >> May may I

[2:21:12] >> Jeppi?

[2:21:13] >> Yes. Boy, lots of work on the numbers.

[2:21:18] Good. Uh Laney, first of all, thank you.

[2:21:21] Very good report. Uh I'd like to put a

[2:21:24] couple of questions on the record and

[2:21:26] then a couple of clarifications.

[2:21:28] So uh let's uh let's confirm adopting

[2:21:32] the CIB tonight. It's it's an action for

[2:21:35] planning purposes. Am I correct that it

[2:21:38] does not appropriate money or constitute

[2:21:42] uh final approval of each individual

[2:21:44] project? Am I correct?

[2:21:46] >> That's correct. The budget is your

[2:21:48] document for approving appropriations

[2:21:50] and the CIP is your planning document.

[2:21:53] >> Perfect. Thank you. Now I in in the plan

[2:21:58] uh how are the project ranked? Say that

[2:22:02] the some revenue or some grant funding

[2:22:05] comes short or below expectation. How do

[2:22:08] we decide what gets defaed uh or or

[2:22:11] prioritized?

[2:22:17] Yeah, I think I'm going to say that you

[2:22:18] know the recommendations come from the

[2:22:20] departmental staff first um and then in

[2:22:23] the process of doing the budget um that

[2:22:27] is like that will then incorporate um uh

[2:22:31] city manager approval and um and you

[2:22:35] know discussion and then it goes before

[2:22:38] the city council.

[2:22:40] So, so the the plan doesn't have a

[2:22:43] guideline criteria set for uh

[2:22:47] prioritizing projects um if the funds

[2:22:51] are not available or if we need to get

[2:22:54] into more debt or increase taxes.

[2:22:57] Yeah, that's I think the nature of the

[2:22:59] five-year plan means we can um

[2:23:02] accommodate,

[2:23:04] you know, economic factors and decide

[2:23:07] where um you know, which year we're

[2:23:10] going to we're going to be able to

[2:23:12] address.

[2:23:13] >> Okay.

[2:23:14] >> Thank you. Which brings me to my next

[2:23:16] question. uh in this plan right now that

[2:23:20] it's very detailed as you said is there

[2:23:24] any project that today has no identified

[2:23:28] funding sources and would might require

[2:23:32] additional taxes debt or rate increases as well

[2:23:38] >> I'd say that every project that we have

[2:23:40] has a is earmarked with a particular

[2:23:43] funding source um or or combination

[2:23:46] thereof of so um in some cases we're

[2:23:49] using like landwater conservation grant

[2:23:52] monies and then we um sometimes

[2:23:55] subsidize the project with resort tax

[2:23:57] dollars if it's an a resort tax

[2:23:59] applicable project. So it just um but

[2:24:03] everything that is in the fisc year 27

[2:24:05] component of the CIP um is funded.

[2:24:10] >> Okay. Thank you. And I have one last

[2:24:11] question. Um,

[2:24:14] since tonight the council approved a

[2:24:18] substantially higher tax levy, does that

[2:24:21] approval uh, which you did not have

[2:24:24] because the proposed budget had a plus

[2:24:27] five meals carryover and we captured

[2:24:30] plus 10 mills carryover. And if I make

[2:24:33] my math correctly, uh, we have increased

[2:24:36] the tax revenue from 31.8% 8% to 42.3%

[2:24:42] with that vote. Does that affect the CIP

[2:24:46] plan in a better way because now we have

[2:24:48] more revenue and where?

[2:24:52] >> No, not really. It's not going to change

[2:24:53] your um the plan. Um I think that it

[2:24:57] gives you latitude to make other

[2:24:59] decisions.

[2:25:01] >> Thank you.

[2:25:01] >> Throughout the course of the fiscal

[2:25:03] year. Do I have

[2:25:04] >> Thank you.

[2:25:08] >> Any questions for Laney or staff for

[2:25:11] that matter?

[2:25:13] >> Please.

[2:25:15] >> I move I move to uh

[2:25:21] I'm sorry. Adopt the fiscal year 27 f to

[2:25:26] fisc year 31 capital improvement program

[2:25:29] as presented by our wonderful finance

[2:25:32] director.

[2:25:33] >> Second. Seconded by councelor Sweeney.

[2:25:36] Further discussion. All those in favor,

[2:25:38] please raise your hand. Those opposed

[2:25:41] like S. That motion does carry

[2:25:43] unanimously. Thanks very much, Laney. I

[2:25:45] know you work very diligently on the on

[2:25:48] the plan. It's much appreciated. You

[2:25:50] have Dana's report and close with the

[2:25:52] packet. Any questions for our city

[2:25:54] manager?

[2:25:56] Dana, anything additional to report on?

[2:25:58] >> I do. I have a couple things. Um, I'll

[2:26:00] keep them brief. Just first a reminder,

[2:26:02] next meeting is on a Tuesday, September

[2:26:04] 8th, due to the um Labor Day holiday. Um

[2:26:07] let's talk about the CWPP for a second.

[2:26:10] Um the um agreement with SWCA um was a

[2:26:15] contract for $87,000.

[2:26:17] We extended the comment period. The

[2:26:19] comment period on the draft plan is

[2:26:20] closed. They're now incorporating the

[2:26:22] comments um certain comments where they

[2:26:25] see um applicable um into the draft

[2:26:28] plan. Our intent will be to bring that

[2:26:30] to city council at a work session to

[2:26:32] review um and then eventually to a

[2:26:35] public hearing for adoption.

[2:26:38] The work session was not in that $87,000

[2:26:40] contract. That's why I brought that up.

[2:26:42] So um I am asking council if you're okay

[2:26:45] for me signing a contract amendment. Um

[2:26:48] the total cost um because we had

[2:26:50] feedback on the difficult the difficult

[2:26:53] readability of the plan. It's very

[2:26:55] technical. There's a lot of pages.

[2:26:57] because it's a very large document. Um,

[2:26:59] with updating the executive summary u

[2:27:02] with the revisions from the comments,

[2:27:04] but really creating a homeowner guidance

[2:27:06] document because I think that was kind

[2:27:08] of some of the feedback we got. So,

[2:27:09] that' be a standalone part of the

[2:27:12] document. It pulls out basically the

[2:27:13] homeowner uh to-dos. Um, and then

[2:27:17] participation in the work session. Um,

[2:27:18] we'd be looking at about $10,000

[2:27:21] additional added to their contract.

[2:27:23] They've also offered developing a

[2:27:25] project hub website. It would be hosted

[2:27:27] on our website, but they could go

[2:27:29] through that development of that

[2:27:30] website. That's an additional 80 $8,578.

[2:27:34] So, a total budget amendment for that

[2:27:37] project or project amendment of

[2:27:39] $18,883.60.

[2:27:43] In general, I'm absolutely comfortable

[2:27:45] with the council work session, the

[2:27:47] guidance document, um the executive

[2:27:49] summary change, uh to better serve the

[2:27:52] public based on the public comment. I'm

[2:27:54] not sure about the project hub site yet,

[2:27:57] but if you guys are interested in that,

[2:28:00] um I just want to get some feedback on

[2:28:02] you on that. Uh usually I I can amend

[2:28:05] contracts within 10%. This would be a

[2:28:07] little bit higher than that.

[2:28:11] » Yeah, I I think it's necessary. I think

[2:28:14] it it is very well comprehensive but it

[2:28:18] was hard to read and I think it won't be

[2:28:21] as user friendly unless we do that kind

[2:28:24] of a outreach and um make it somewhat

[2:28:27] simpler to for people to actually

[2:28:31] utilize. So, I'm in favor.

[2:28:38] » Showing of hands

[2:28:40] and we'll hold off on the web

[2:28:42] development until perhaps the work

[2:28:44] session.

[2:28:45] >> Okay, that sounds great. Um, and then

[2:28:48] also on CWPP um and growth policy. Um,

[2:28:52] thanks to Allan. I had sent him a link

[2:28:53] to a grant that I saw that came up. Um,

[2:28:56] he only had like a week maybe to get it

[2:28:57] done. We were successful in um getting

[2:29:01] uh being selected to participate with

[2:29:02] the SEPAW uh program. It's the community

[2:29:05] planning assistance for wildfire

[2:29:08] uh program. It's one year of technical

[2:29:10] assistance. They will be completing an

[2:29:12] audit of our land use um our current

[2:29:14] policies, our capacity and development

[2:29:16] code. Um they really help with land use

[2:29:18] planning. So just excited to have them.

[2:29:20] It's grant funded through the US Forest

[2:29:22] Service, but that's going to really help

[2:29:23] support our consultants when we go

[2:29:24] through the zoning updates, the big

[2:29:26] zoning updates for the growth policy,

[2:29:28] and we'll be able to uh, you know, check

[2:29:30] off one of the recommendations within

[2:29:32] the CW BP right now. So, that's

[2:29:34] exciting. They've helped um a lot of

[2:29:36] communities in Colorado, Hawaii,

[2:29:38] Missoula County, and Big Sky locally.

[2:29:40] So, um, last update I have is the, uh,

[2:29:44] North White Fish Lake Community Fire

[2:29:46] Association.

[2:29:47] um if you recall, they're the group that

[2:29:49] we're working with to apply for the DNRC

[2:29:52] easement. Um I anticipate bringing anou

[2:29:54] update forward to council within the

[2:29:56] next um month or so. Uh we worked with

[2:30:00] DNRC. I think we have a path forward. I

[2:30:02] was at a meeting on Saturday um at their

[2:30:05] house where they brought in um residents

[2:30:07] from Rest Haven, from um Iron Horse were

[2:30:09] there to really and even just their

[2:30:11] surrounding neighborhood to try to see

[2:30:13] how this location and working together

[2:30:16] with Iron Horse could help really uh

[2:30:18] create a good fire network. And so, um

[2:30:21] it was all very positive at that

[2:30:22] meeting, but I just want to let you know

[2:30:24] you'll see that update come forward and

[2:30:25] they're getting prepared to uh for us to

[2:30:28] help them with that application process

[2:30:29] here soon. Um, I think that's all I have

[2:30:33] for tonight.

[2:30:34] >> Thank you, Dana.

[2:30:37] On that note, we will move on to item

[2:30:40] 8C,

[2:30:42] which is consideration of a request from

[2:30:44] Habitat to for tax fund to purchase 1974

[2:30:50] and 1982 Whitefish Avenue to construct

[2:30:53] two town homes. Dana.

[2:30:56] >> All right. You have my staff report in

[2:30:58] the packet. I'm not going to cover

[2:31:00] everything in that. Um, as you know, uh,

[2:31:03] earlier this year, we approved or the

[2:31:05] city council approved $250,000 to

[2:31:08] support the purchase of, I believe it

[2:31:10] was 1966

[2:31:13] and something else, uh, the neighboring

[2:31:15] property. Um, they have broken ground on

[2:31:17] that project and we did contribute our

[2:31:18] funds to that. They now have the

[2:31:20] opportunity to purchase the lot right

[2:31:22] next door. Um, it is a little bit larger

[2:31:25] lot. Um so it will provide two town

[2:31:28] homes but also um park park space for

[2:31:31] those four town homes. What would be

[2:31:33] four town homes? Um they still have the

[2:31:35] same um requirements within the

[2:31:38] agreement that's been drafted to require

[2:31:41] restriction of ownership um with incomes

[2:31:43] at or below 80% area median income. Um

[2:31:46] two-year completion of the project.

[2:31:48] Annual progress reports from Habitat. um

[2:31:51] the shared appreciation allowing the

[2:31:53] homeowner to um capture 25% of the

[2:31:56] appreciated value at the time of sale

[2:31:58] and the city's ability to audit the

[2:32:00] financial records of the project. Um

[2:32:04] they have reviewed the agreement as well

[2:32:07] and um are prepared to sign with your

[2:32:09] approval. The fiscal year 2027

[2:32:13] um resort tax budget does have

[2:32:15] appropriations available for this type

[2:32:18] of project. Um, we have yet to create

[2:32:20] our grant program or committee. That is

[2:32:23] in the works. So, that is why I'm

[2:32:24] bringing this forward today. Um, when

[2:32:27] you account for other committed funds

[2:32:30] already, we do have um $814,000

[2:32:35] available for pro programs and projects

[2:32:38] for uh fiscal year 27. And so, the

[2:32:41] $250,000 is easily uh fit within the

[2:32:44] current budget. We support uh this staff

[2:32:47] supports this request um for the city to

[2:32:50] purchase the lots at 1974 and 1982

[2:32:53] Whitefish Avenue and we recommend city

[2:32:55] council approve such request.

[2:32:58] >> Great project. I would entertain a

[2:33:00] motion, please.

[2:33:01] >> I would move that we uh award the grant

[2:33:03] or the request to purchase those two

[2:33:06] lots for $250,000 to Habitat for

[2:33:09] Humanity.

[2:33:10] >> Is there

[2:33:12] seconded by councelor Calabiano? further

[2:33:14] discussion.

[2:33:17] » I just wanted to say thank you to Mr.

[2:33:20] Brett Campbell because he gave us the um

[2:33:25] the law at a discount so made it

[2:33:28] possible.

[2:33:30] >> Thanks, Rebecca. Ben,

[2:33:31] >> I just wanted to say that I've said this

[2:33:33] before, so I won't belabor the point,

[2:33:35] but th this model that we're seeing here

[2:33:37] where

[2:33:39] we're using some of our municipal funds

[2:33:42] combined with other grants, 2%

[2:33:46] mortgages, volunteer labor, other

[2:33:48] nonprofits participating in this process

[2:33:52] really provides, in my opinion, a very

[2:33:55] strong value for the use of our

[2:33:57] affordable housing dollars. In my

[2:33:58] opinion, I think this is exactly what

[2:34:00] the citizens were expecting when they

[2:34:03] authorized um this affordable housing

[2:34:06] fund. So, um I appreciate that you're

[2:34:08] here and that you stuck around, Mary

[2:34:09] Beth, through uh our our budget

[2:34:11] discussion. I'm sure that was

[2:34:13] enlightening. Um and in the event, um I

[2:34:16] appreciate the work you're doing and

[2:34:17] please uh please proceed. Thank you.

[2:34:20] >> Thanks, Mary Beth. All those in favor of

[2:34:22] the motion, please raise your hand.

[2:34:23] opposed

[2:34:25] likes on and that is unanimous.

[2:34:27] Michelle, you do. Thank you, Mary Beth,

[2:34:29] very much. Uh, we do have a letter

[2:34:31] enclosed in the packet from Shane

[2:34:34] regarding motorized vehicles on public

[2:34:36] pathways. Any comments on that letter? I

[2:34:39] think we've seen these comments before.

[2:34:44] » So, one of the garbage cans might have

[2:34:47] gotten hit by an electric bike. Maria,

[2:34:50] do you know about that or Bridger? It

[2:34:53] was at the foot bridge and it got taken

[2:34:56] down for repairs and I thought maybe you

[2:34:59] had just taken it and I so I called to

[2:35:02] say we need it and Jenny said that um

[2:35:06] that it was possibly hit by an electric

[2:35:08] bike and so uh I just wonder are we

[2:35:12] doing any is there anything else we can

[2:35:14] do to keep people safe on the trails?

[2:35:17] Um, I just don't know if we should like

[2:35:21] he's calling for signage. Um, he says

[2:35:24] it's very difficult to enforce it, but

[2:35:26] is there anything else that you guys

[2:35:28] have thought about making people more

[2:35:31] compliant and not hitting our garbage

[2:35:33] cans?

[2:35:43] Um, you know, I I think as we the first

[2:35:47] level enforcement of our ordinance and

[2:35:50] state laws regarding electric devices, I

[2:35:54] guess we'll say, um, is education and

[2:35:57] that's where we're at now. So, the

[2:35:59] police department has made a valiant

[2:36:00] effort and I think it's been successful

[2:36:02] with electric motorcycles.

[2:36:05] uh when you deal with bicycles and

[2:36:07] electric assist bicycles, it's a little

[2:36:09] bit more difficult. I think the law

[2:36:11] referenced electric scooters is clear

[2:36:13] and as we gear up enforcement of those,

[2:36:16] determining whether or not they're

[2:36:18] self-propelled or electrically

[2:36:20] powered um is going to be

[2:36:24] some learning curve in that, but I think

[2:36:26] that'll be fairly easy to enforce. But I

[2:36:28] think as we move forward um and I think

[2:36:30] the legislation will take this up again,

[2:36:32] especially with classifying electric

[2:36:34] bicycles hopefully um in that next

[2:36:36] legislation, but I think our current

[2:36:38] ordinance covers that. State law covers

[2:36:40] that and we'll continue to work with

[2:36:41] parks and wreck. Um I was not aware of

[2:36:44] the trash can being hit. I don't think

[2:36:45] that was reported uh to the police

[2:36:47] department, but um if you see trouble

[2:36:49] areas or places that we could point our

[2:36:53] enforcement to, that would be helpful.

[2:37:00] Just one thing quickly. Is it possible

[2:37:02] to push uh the idea of signage off to

[2:37:04] the bike ped committee because I don't

[2:37:07] think that's a bad idea to have speed

[2:37:09] limits and other types of signs that are

[2:37:11] a little more visible.

[2:37:13] Is that something you guys could take up

[2:37:15] at Bike Ped? Uh we do have a wayfinding

[2:37:19] um plan and bike path sign plan and we

[2:37:22] parks and recreation manages that and we

[2:37:24] do review it with bike pad.

[2:37:26] >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks Maria. We're

[2:37:28] going to move on to adjournment. We'll

[2:37:30] start with councelor comments. Jeppi,

[2:37:34] thanks for joining us remotely and be

[2:37:37] safe out there. Any comments this

[2:37:38] evening?

[2:37:39] >> Yes. Uh my pleasure and uh thank you for

[2:37:43] this technology on the regular meeting

[2:37:45] is amazing that apart from being in a

[2:37:48] dark room I feel almost like I'm there.

[2:37:51] So I appreciate the technicians who make

[2:37:54] this possible. Um, before we adjourn, I

[2:37:58] just wanted to encourage everyone to

[2:38:01] join us on September 11 at 11:00 a.m. at

[2:38:04] the Emergency Services Center for the

[2:38:06] unveiling of phase one of our 9 911

[2:38:09] memorial. I'm sure we all read Dana's

[2:38:12] report and that's the top paragraph in

[2:38:15] that report in the future events. It's

[2:38:18] important that we continue to remember

[2:38:21] those we lost, honored the first

[2:38:23] responders who ran towards danger and

[2:38:26] not away from it, and make sure that a

[2:38:29] new generation understands what that day

[2:38:32] meant for our country, for our country.

[2:38:35] I hope to see many members of our

[2:38:37] community there and in the future

[2:38:40] supporting those uh um actions. Thank

[2:38:44] you.

[2:38:45] >> Thank you, Jeppi. Steve,

[2:38:48] >> thanks Mayor. Yeah, thanks Jeppe. I will

[2:38:50] not be able to attend. I will be

[2:38:51] actually in school teaching uh students

[2:38:53] who were born in um 2012 about September

[2:38:57] 11th. Um just one quick question for uh

[2:39:01] for Craig. North Carol

[2:39:05] uh the weeds are pretty much out of

[2:39:08] control there. Is anybody has that been

[2:39:10] addressed?

[2:39:13] Are you talking about in behind white

[2:39:16] fish yards or

[2:39:17] >> Yeah, behind their the weeds the that

[2:39:21] whole hillside is covered in noxious

[2:39:23] weeds.

[2:39:24] >> Okay. So,

[2:39:25] >> yeah, I think that really becomes a code

[2:39:28] enforcement issue, but we can we can

[2:39:30] work with that property owner. I

[2:39:33] actually don't know who the property

[2:39:34] owner is currently.

[2:39:35] >> I don't think anybody does at the

[2:39:36] current time, but

[2:39:37] >> I just wanted to bring it up because I

[2:39:39] ride through there regularly and it's pretty bad.

[2:39:42] >> Okay. Uh, thank you. Um, that's all I

[2:39:45] have tonight. Thanks.

[2:39:46] >> Thanks, Steve. Frank,

[2:39:49] I just want to give a a big shout out to

[2:39:52] the Wave and Carrie Jacobs in particular

[2:39:55] who runs the swimming program at at the

[2:39:57] Wave. She put on or has for the past

[2:40:00] five or seven years put on the swim the

[2:40:02] fish activity which was supposedly two

[2:40:05] weeks ago, Saturday when or or Sunday,

[2:40:09] whenever it was. We unfortunately were

[2:40:11] unable to hold the activity or the race

[2:40:13] per se because of the air quality was so

[2:40:16] bad uh that we weren't authorized to do

[2:40:19] that. Um but uh since the volunteers

[2:40:23] were there and the buoys were set um the

[2:40:27] public was allowed to take advantage of

[2:40:29] that uh set course and if they wanted to

[2:40:31] swim they could and we did and it was a

[2:40:33] great success and everybody had a great

[2:40:35] time. So, I just like to again

[2:40:37] acknowledge what a great work she's done

[2:40:39] and what the wave has done for those

[2:40:42] kinds of activities. It's it's a great

[2:40:44] thing for our community. So, thanks.

[2:40:47] >> Thanks, Frank. Ben,

[2:40:50] um I would start by congratulating Mayor

[2:40:52] Meld for uh exercising a very rare vote

[2:40:55] up here.

[2:40:57] Um but uh work on your right arm

[2:41:00] strength. But anyway, um no, that was a

[2:41:03] healthy discussion. And I just wanted to

[2:41:04] thank you all for it. I I uh it's a good

[2:41:07] one to have and I I appreciate the

[2:41:09] differences of opinion and glad we can

[2:41:12] um constructively work towards the best

[2:41:15] answer at least for the majority. So um

[2:41:18] all good and um and I and I and I do

[2:41:21] mean the budget was well done. So um

[2:41:24] thank you staff. Um I did on the budget

[2:41:26] I would also make the comment that um

[2:41:29] one of these days I would love to think

[2:41:32] about how we present the budget. So like

[2:41:36] I've said this before and I apologize

[2:41:38] saying again but maybe now that we're

[2:41:39] done with it we can we have more

[2:41:40] downtime we can work on it one day where

[2:41:42] we actually like how it's presented like

[2:41:44] especially historically like how we

[2:41:46] measure ourselves and how we measure the

[2:41:47] budget over time um I think could be

[2:41:50] improved. I'd love to help work on that

[2:41:52] if I could. Um

[2:41:55] my second comment would be um I I

[2:41:59] at some point or tell me where or how to

[2:42:01] follow up on the exploratory wells for

[2:42:04] water wildfire resilience. I I do think

[2:42:06] that the risk of of us losing our drinking

[2:42:10] water in Haskell Creek is real in my

[2:42:12] opinion for at least some period of time

[2:42:14] and so um I think it would behoove us to

[2:42:17] you know advance that concept forward if

[2:42:20] it makes sense and if everybody agrees.

[2:42:22] So,

[2:42:24] um, and then the last comment I had is

[2:42:26] just on the the deed restrictions with

[2:42:27] Habitat. I I did send you an email,

[2:42:29] Dana. Um, I honestly I know you

[2:42:31] responded to me today and I didn't get a

[2:42:33] chance to read it, but I think in

[2:42:35] general, if you could help help us make

[2:42:37] sure that um as we're providing these

[2:42:40] funds to to Habitat

[2:42:42] um and the land trust that we're covered

[2:42:45] in the event that either one of those

[2:42:46] organizations were to fail for some

[2:42:48] reason and if if that we don't lose our

[2:42:50] affordable housing stock. So, however,

[2:42:53] um, if you could just help us make sure

[2:42:54] that that happens, I appreciate that.

[2:42:56] That's all my com.

[2:42:57] >> Thank you, Ben. Rebecca,

[2:43:00] >> no comment.

[2:43:01] >> Thank you, Rebecca. Andy,

[2:43:03] >> quickly again, thanks to staff and

[2:43:05] everybody up here after going through

[2:43:07] yet another budget season and think it's

[2:43:09] only seven and a half months before we

[2:43:11] get to start again. So, there

[2:43:14] >> um, quick shout out to Lizzie and Craig

[2:43:16] for being 83% of the capital improvement

[2:43:18] budget. I think that's [laughter]

[2:43:21] thinks that that's worthy a note. Um,

[2:43:24] quick question for Craig. I've had a

[2:43:27] couple of people call me and ask about

[2:43:28] the exterior

[2:43:30] H2O insurance, waterline insurance, a

[2:43:34] letter that we all received. And first

[2:43:36] one was, is this a scam? And I said, no,

[2:43:38] it's not a scam. But just quickly for

[2:43:41] everybody that might still be listening

[2:43:43] or read the minutes, just a quick

[2:43:46] explanation.

[2:43:48] >> It was pretty good. People were like,

[2:43:50] "What? What do I do this? Do I not? Do

[2:43:53] I?"

[2:43:53] >> Although I I will say that the initial

[2:43:56] launch has not been very smooth. That's

[2:43:59] what I was.

[2:44:00] >> There's been complaints that on their

[2:44:02] website 59937

[2:44:04] is not an area they service. We've had

[2:44:07] complaints that in order to answer

[2:44:10] questions, they want email addresses and

[2:44:13] credit card numbers. Um, I've relayed

[2:44:16] all of this to our main um,

[2:44:18] correspondent at home serve and I

[2:44:20] haven't had any response from him. Um, I

[2:44:23] will say that I believe MMIA endorsed

[2:44:25] this. No, the League of Cities, excuse

[2:44:28] me. Um, National League of Cities

[2:44:31] endorsed um, this insurance company. And

[2:44:35] so, um, we're still in the learning

[2:44:38] phase, but it is my understanding that

[2:44:40] for 70ome dollars a year, they will

[2:44:44] ensure your water service from where the

[2:44:47] city's responsibility stops at the curb

[2:44:49] stop to your house.

[2:44:53] >> Up to $12,000.

[2:44:56] >> Sorry, that was small print. [laughter]

[2:45:00] of eligible costs probably would be my

[2:45:04] guess. [laughter]

[2:45:06] >> There's a little copy of it. Um, other

[2:45:08] than that, just happy be safe out there

[2:45:10] and up there and we look forward to

[2:45:12] seeing you back here warming your chair

[2:45:13] up soon.

[2:45:16] >> Thanks, Andy. Um, just wanted to give a

[2:45:19] shout out to my niece and nephew.

[2:45:21] They're both off to college this week to

[2:45:24] MSU and the University of Hawaii, but it

[2:45:26] was their birthdays this week. I'm super

[2:45:29] proud of them and love them a ton and my

[2:45:34] brother and his wife have done an

[2:45:36] incredible job raising them. So,

[2:45:38] congrats to them as well. On that note,

[2:45:40] Allan, thanks for coming tonight and

[2:45:42] your work on the water and wastewater

[2:45:44] sewer plans, etc., etc. Appreciate your

[2:45:47] input as always, and that was an

[2:45:49] excellent report. It's a it's a good

[2:45:52] resource to have at our hands. Other

[2:45:54] than that, staff, thank you. On that

[2:45:57] note, we will be adjourned. We'll see

[2:45:59] you September 8th, which is a Tuesday.

[2:46:02] Thanks.

Whitefish City Council Meeting - August 17, 2026

Transcript