[0:00] It is Thursday, October 8th. It's 9 o'clock. Please rise and join me in the pledge.
[0:07] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic
[0:13] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for
[0:20] all.
[0:23] I guess I forgot to say it, but call this meeting to order. Um, but I do. Uh. Our
[0:28] first item, for the record, there was no public comment this morning. And our first
[0:33] item up is
[0:37] Are we doing the canvas? OK. It's a document for signature for appointment of supplemental
[0:42] election judges. Good morning, Commissioners. Paula Buff, Flathead County Election
[0:48] Administrator. The document for signature before you, um, is a list of election judges
[0:55] that we trained on a supplemental basis on the 15th and 22nd of September. These
[1:02] judges have completed this training and meet the required election judge qualifications
[1:07] pursuant to MCA 134107 and have completed the required training per
[1:13] 134203. Their assignments are listed below. It is hereby requested that the Flathead
[1:21] County Board of Commissioners appoint the supplemental election judges listed below
[1:25] to work the November 3rd general election and all further elections held prior to
[1:30] the 2028 primary election. Judges may be added or removed as necessary. Mr. Chair,
[1:37] I move signature to the appointment of supplemental election judges. I have a motion
[1:41] to second. Is there further discussion. I just want to thank the judges that do this.
[1:46] They commit a tremendous amount of energy and a day out of their lives, and it is
[1:53] very valuable for Flathead County. Agreed. Thank you. Is there further discussion?
[1:59] Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you,
[2:05] Paul. Thank you. I gave you guys the original that I had signed. Oh, OK.
[2:14] Our next item up is a document for signature. SFY
[2:21] DP 27 DPHHS contract amendment. Good morning, Commissioners. Mandy Fleming with the
[2:29] Health Department. This contract supports the implementation of the Personal Responsibility
[2:34] Education Program, as well as the sexual risk avoidance education program. They've
[2:38] been, um, these are evidence-based prevention education programs that we provide
[2:42] in the Flathead Valley. The curriculums focus on healthy relationships, communication,
[2:47] decision-making, resisting peer pressure, and avoiding risky behavior. Data from
[2:52] both programs shows positive outcomes. SRA data shows that 83% of youth were more
[2:57] likely to better understand what makes a relationship healthy. 72% were more likely
[3:02] to care about doing well in school and 69% were more likely to resist or say no to
[3:07] peer pressure. PrEP data showed that, sorry, 72% of them were more likely to plan
[3:13] and reach their goals, 73% were more likely to be respectful to others, and 5. 3%
[3:18] of participants reported being more likely to talk with a parent or guardian about
[3:23] sensitive topics. We've been implementing this program for over 15 years. Um, last
[3:28] year alone, our health educator provided education at 7 locations across multiple
[3:33] grade levels and reached more than 400 students. Mr. Chair, I move the document for
[3:39] signature SFY 27 DPHHS contract amendment. Second, I have a motion to second
[3:47] the discussion. I do have just a comment. Mandy, thank you for the statistics on
[3:53] the success of this. So often we, we, we see these things and we don't necessarily
[3:58] hear the results. The results are very important for me as a commissioner and for
[4:04] our taxpayers. Thank you. You're welcome.
[4:07] Is there further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor. Aye, same sign. motion
[4:13] carries. Thank you.
[4:16] Our next item up is. A document for signature task order amendment 3, personal
[4:23] responsibility education program, prep and sexual risk avoidance education, S R A
[4:30] E. Is that just what we did? OK. OK, we already did that. Then we are in recess until
[4:38] 9:15.
[4:42] It is 9:15. I call our meeting back to order. Our first item up is our bi-monthly
[4:47] meeting with Terry Dugan from the library. Good morning, Terry.
[4:54] Hello, Terry Dugan from the library. Happy to be here this morning to give you our
[4:58] monthly update of stuff going on at the library. I'm happy to report that it's kind
[5:03] of business as usual. We're over our summer, um, super busy time, and we're just
[5:08] kind of settling into the fall. School starts, our programming kind of settles down,
[5:13] and we're just doing, um, day to day business, which is great because we love to
[5:16] do that. Um, I wanna give you an update on the letter of intent that we have with
[5:22] shop development regarding the Kalispell future possible library. That letter is
[5:28] still in their hands. The library board had asked for a response or at least um an
[5:34] acknowledgement of that at the end of, by the end of September. We have not received
[5:39] anything and so, um, we are actively looking at other opportunities and see what,
[5:44] um, keeping our options open for what that could look like. So we're not quite sure
[5:49] what that means, but, um, we're, we're ready to look at other things as well. Terry,
[5:55] could you go a little deeper into that? That's the parcel by the um by the wall.
[6:00] Red, Reddy, can you. In the microphone, sorry, that's parcel by the mall. Yes, that's
[6:06] that two acre piece that we had requested by the mall kind of at the west end, um,
[6:11] and we had kind of indicated our interest to them quite a while ago, but they've
[6:17] kind of pulled back from any commitment on that. They've said that they would, um,
[6:22] sign the letter and kind of given us verbal, um. Communication, but we have not seen
[6:29] that in the form of an official signature. OK, great. Thank you.
[6:35] Um, our feasibility study continues anyway, which is something we need to do. Our,
[6:40] um, Our brand raise consultants are doing a great job interviewing lots of people,
[6:46] having focus groups. We have that survey out there, it ends tomorrow. It's the last
[6:50] day of that. We have 225 responses, which is great. We'd love to get more, but um
[6:58] not everybody likes to take the time to do those surveys. It is, you can answer it
[7:02] anonymously. I think the only required Um, category is your zip code. So that's,
[7:08] that's fine for folks that want to just answer that way. Um, our Columbia Falls Library,
[7:16] we are looking to the future for that location. The city of Columbia Falls has approached
[7:21] us, which we really appreciate, just saying, hey, in the future, we really need this
[7:27] space. We've been in there since the 1960s and they've grown since then. Their administration
[7:34] needs that, that space within City Hall, and so they're actively helping us look
[7:39] for possible other locations and we've had some really nice um Possible leads of
[7:44] what that could look like. I know we're a few years out, maybe 2 or 3 years out,
[7:48] but Um, that's a promising, promising partnership with the city there as well.
[7:57] Um, just as a side note, the Columbia Falls Library sees about 60,000 people a year.
[8:02] So it's a super busy library, especially with businesses and, uh, business printing.
[8:08] They actually print more copies than Kalispell does. They're just a, a business hub
[8:14] for that area. Terry, that's, that's visitors. Um, but it might be the same visitor
[8:20] more than once would be counted in that, or is those individuals that's actually
[8:24] just door counts, yeah, so it could be a person coming once a month or whatever,
[8:28] yeah, yeah. Um, our Evergreen, um, smart locker which we ordered is, is coming. Um,
[8:35] we have a site at the Evergreen Middle School there. We've met with the school district
[8:40] and they are super excited to partner with us. And we have an electrician going next
[8:46] week to get that site ready for the electrical part of that. And that unit will be
[8:51] installed. It'll be 18 lockers of bookholds that people will put on hold online and
[8:56] be able to pick them up and return them in Evergreen. So we're really excited to
[9:01] see what that looks like for services in that area cause we know that's a need, so.
[9:05] That's kind of a pilot project. See how that works.
[9:10] Um, Marion, we've reestablished our Marion Holds pickup. We started on September
[9:14] 21st. The school there has volunteers, parent volunteers that kind of organize and
[9:20] they come to the library once a week. And we're excited to have that back in business.
[9:25] I'm not sure of those numbers yet. I'm curious to see how that, how that's used,
[9:29] um, but we're happy to be able to, to supply that again.
[9:35] Um, our Lakeside Library, as you know, too, it's a volunteer library, it's not our
[9:38] library, but it is a holds pickup library, and we do have our courier go there once,
[9:44] sometimes twice a week to take holds, pick up holds, folks can use that library as
[9:50] well. So we're really trying to get our, our services out through the county where
[9:55] we can. It's a big county, as you know, and so, um, we're trying to think of ways
[9:58] that we can help people get those library materials, um. Into the hands where it's
[10:05] more convenient for them.
[10:09] Um, staffing, we have a few open positions at the library. We have two part-time
[10:13] materials handlers position, that's kind of our entry level where folks come in and
[10:18] they make sure all our, our materials are handled, put in the right place so they
[10:24] can be found again. It could be absolute chaos if we don't put things back right
[10:27] where they belong. So there, there is a, a technique to that. Um, we also have a
[10:34] custodian position available. We have, we had a library courier that had to, um,
[10:39] retire and she, um, She was sad to go and we were sad to see her go, but she did
[10:46] want to retire and so one of our custodians applied for the, the courier position
[10:50] and they're doing a great job and we're excited, but of course, that opened up the
[10:53] courier position. So we'll be filling that. And also a technology manager position.
[11:00] Um, our IT technology administrator, Sam Crompton has retired and we're happy for
[11:06] him, but now we need to fill that position. So we have applications open for that
[11:12] and so far we, we've received one application, so we're looking at that, but we hope
[11:16] to get that filled within a um short time. Tony and I are handling those IT things
[11:21] in the meantime. And the county has been absolutely phenomenal with helping us. We'll
[11:25] call over to IT and say, hey, what is this if we get stuck, and they've been really
[11:30] great. So, do we have Um Have we looked at bringing
[11:37] IT just under one umbrella here like we've done out at FECC? Yes, we have. I know
[11:43] Justin and Terry have talked a little bit about that. Um, I would encourage exploring
[11:48] that more, um.
[11:52] But again, I think it's kind of up to the director and the board of trustees to make
[11:56] that, but yes, it has been discussed, especially with the opportunity of having the
[12:01] vacancy, efficiency thing
[12:05] same thing we do with 911. Yeah, same thing with the custodial service.
[12:11] I mean you could, you could find some synergies in economies of scale with custodian
[12:15] service and potentially the security as well. Yeah, yeah, anyway, just, just, just
[12:21] checking, thanks.
[12:24] Um, let's see, library count week. We just finished our library count week every
[12:28] year. We do statistics for the state library and we fill out a very large survey.
[12:35] They use those statistics to send to this, um, federal agency that they report to.
[12:41] And so that's quite a big process, but, um, This past week, we, we tracked reference
[12:46] questions because we're a big referral. We're information and referral, people will
[12:50] come to us and ask about Social Security or voting or registration or different um
[12:57] medical things that we find that information for them and send them to where they
[13:01] need to go. We, so that's kind of our bread and butter is referring those, those
[13:05] um that information to folks. And so, we track those which is really important and
[13:10] um That's always a fun time to tracking those. We've got lots of statistics, and
[13:15] then we have to figure out what to do with them. Um, and we do plan on getting that
[13:21] state funding, that state aid this year, um, that usually comes around in October
[13:25] and part of that reporting of those statistics goes toward that state aid as well,
[13:30] um, cause that's a required thing that we do. Happy to answer any questions. I don't
[13:37] have any. Thank you. Thank you. OK, thank you. Appreciate it. Does the, do the two
[13:43] board members have anything they'd like to share?
[13:47] OK, we, we are in recess until 9:30. Thanks.
[13:54] I, I call our meeting back to order. It's 9:30. It's our first item up is a COS review
[14:00] for Kelvin Gordon Graham, FSE 26-06. Good morning, Commissioners.
[14:08] Ella Jordan with uh Planning and zoning. Uh, so the matter at hand is potential evasion
[14:14] of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. Uh, the clerk and recorder office issued
[14:21] a letter indicating a proposed family transfer division may be an invasion of the
[14:26] Montana Subdivision and Planning Act because it exhibits a pattern of development
[14:31] under the Flathead County subdivision regulations. They are proposing in the new
[14:36] COS to divide the existing 3.72 acre parcel into two parcels and transferring it
[14:43] from to the spouse of the property owner. This would mean there are
[14:51] 4 total tracks created.
[14:56] Since I guess 2003, uh, plus a remainder tract. Do you have any questions for me?
[15:05] Um, I don't see any of the consultants or the applicant. For questions, I'm sure
[15:12] they were notified. So
[15:17] Who notifies him?
[15:21] I let reporters know that this is going on and then I right so who, who notifies
[15:27] the applicant.
[15:30] The like the The clerk and recorder, I think it's clerk and recorder, OK. Well, I,
[15:36] I had some questions. I, so I don't know that, um, But I can proceed today with
[15:44] this. All right, yeah, I, I, I moved the table. I'll second that. I have a motion
[15:50] in a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor. Aye,
[15:56] aye oppose same sign. Motion carries back to order. Our first item up is our bi-monthly
[16:03] meeting with Liz Wood from Mountain Climber. Good morning, Commissioners. Liz Wood,
[16:07] director for Mountain Climber. Uh, we'll start with some safety. On our September
[16:12] 22nd all-staff lunch meeting, we had Eli come visit us from the health department.
[16:18] He provided some instruction um on recognizing signs of opioid, opioid overdose and
[16:25] safety handling and administering of the naloxone. Um, I would just say that our
[16:30] drivers were very engaged in that. Uh, they always like it when we have a guest come
[16:34] and present for us and they were really engaged in that training, so it was good
[16:38] to have. Um, we went over lift mechanisms and safety troubleshooting on our two new
[16:42] vans. They are slightly different than our other Ford Transits. Our previous Ford
[16:48] Transits had the rear, um, lifts. These have side shift and, um, I guess
[16:55] deployment of the lift. So, we went over that with the drivers in case any of them
[17:00] were to have to switch vehicles. We like them to all be trained on all the equipment.
[17:05] Um, winter safety is rolled out, so we've got all of our snow tires already on all
[17:10] of our vehicles. So we like to get ahead of the busy season on that, so we're not
[17:14] stressing the tire shop out and we are good to go. Um, we've got all our salt buckets
[17:21] out, our sand barrels, uh, for them to fill up and have on their vehicles. Our cleat
[17:26] sign up sheets are out, so we'll make sure that everyone's got their proper safety.
[17:31] Feet out there on those icy roads when they come upon us. Um, ridership for this
[17:39] first quarter of this new fiscal year is down a little bit. Um, I do have the ridership.
[17:47] chart there. Um Basically, we have not been slower, I can tell you that. So what
[17:53] we experienced this summer, one, we did not have our seasonal driver this year. Our
[17:57] usual seasonal driver did not return this year, so we were kind of behind on getting
[18:03] that posted and getting that filled. Um, so we did not have that seasonal job this
[18:08] year. We also had like 2.5. Drivers at any given point that were out for medical
[18:14] leave this year, um, surgeries and such, so it really put us really behind on, on
[18:20] driver availability. So even though it reflects fewer rides over last year, we just
[18:26] had significantly fewer driver hours out there to provide those rides. So we were
[18:31] still very busy. I just want to kind of give an explanation on that. So Liz, that
[18:35] meant that when they tried to apply for, they went to via, they tried to get into
[18:40] it. They would have got a not available message, correct? Yes, either that or it's
[18:46] about 50% still of the riders that will call our office and visit with Brian or Eric
[18:51] on the phone and then they deny him the trip. So when, so we track those numbers
[18:58] also, do we show that as a spike in those numbers too? I will have to get back with
[19:04] you on that. I'll try to have a really good breakdown for you guys in our next report.
[19:08] Yeah, um, I mean, I'd be, I'd be guessing that we, it was probably maintaining. I
[19:14] don't really feel like it was a significant increase in that. I feel like it pretty
[19:18] maintained about the same percentage, but I'd be guessing if I figure that out. So
[19:24] I'll get that information for you next time, yeah. Um, so that gives you a little
[19:30] explanation on that. Um, our ridership for first quarter, as I mentioned, was down.
[19:35] It was down 1,205 rides. So, to give you an idea for July, August and September,
[19:41] about 1200 rides. Um, that being said, you're, this, this This year over the year,
[19:49] 2 years ago, we're still significantly higher. So, I know I mentioned every, every
[19:55] report with you folks last year that um we were higher, higher, higher. We had significant
[19:59] increases all last year. So, we're still higher, significantly higher than FY 25.
[20:05] So, we're just still seeing that increase over a couple of years ago. Um.
[20:12] FY 26 breakdown, um, I gave that to you last time, but I just want to put a reminder
[20:16] in there of who we're serving, and we're still maintaining this for the first quarter
[20:21] of FY 27. So 46% of our rides are for what we call general public. 28% are provided
[20:28] to folks with disabilities, and 20, I think I said 28%, and 26% for older adults.
[20:35] So we're still very pleased with that. We're not seeing that number do any significant
[20:39] jumps in any direction, so it really demonstrates that we are servicing everyone
[20:42] in the community that needs that ride. We're not favoring our general ridership over
[20:47] our seniors or folks with disabilities, so we're very pleased with that. Um, a few
[20:52] updates, um, on operations and programming. Um, our grant funding, so we did have
[20:59] that grant application, um, and contract signed from the commissioners, but I just
[21:03] wanted to give you a heads up that that will probably be showing back up, um, in
[21:07] the EDoc signature email for you, Brad, or in your email. Um, they have a, a couple
[21:13] slight minor um additions on that. Um, they're basically just adding in
[21:21] Um, they're adding in the, the contract year and then they're adding in the FAN number.
[21:26] So very minimal changes on that, but that will come back before you commissioners
[21:29] for approval again here in the next few days. Um. MDT is still reviewing our
[21:37] capital requests for this year. Um, I have not heard any word back as to whether
[21:42] or not they're going to award us the two vans that we applied for or our paving project.
[21:46] So, that still is just maintaining. I will be visiting with Whitney to move forward
[21:50] with that, either way. Um, so, we can start planning for that to put that out for
[21:56] RFP, um. In the spring, uh, well, probably late winter, uh, but I'll get with Whitney
[22:02] on that to move forward on that. Um. We did receive word that the state has announced
[22:10] that they are not going to be accepting any applications for capital for FY 28. So
[22:15] we had originally planned to put in for 4 more vans next year for FY 28. Uh, they
[22:22] just have such a backlog on, um, trying for procurement, procurement on these vehicles
[22:28] that they're just not going to be taking any applications this next year. So that's
[22:32] a little unfortunate. So Liz, is that because of the Uh, the state, uh state backlog
[22:39] in their ability to process, or is it because the manufacturers have a backlog? It
[22:44] is the state, so they've, yeah, it's, it's a bit of a struggle right now, um, so
[22:51] it's, it's not, it's not, it's leaving a lot of these transit agencies in some significant
[22:56] tough spots. I mean our. Our current fleet, and it's not just ours, it's across the
[23:02] state, um, the state of disrepair and the cost for our maintenance is pretty significant.
[23:08] So, a lot of these agencies are, are gonna be in a tough spot. Um, so we won't be
[23:14] putting in for those next year unless something changes, but, uh, last word we heard,
[23:18] they will not be accepting any applications for capital. So that'll make us continue
[23:22] to use the bigger vans longer or bigger buses. It will, and like we, we have a vehicle
[23:28] that we have had in the shop. Um, we just put it out for one day and it's back in
[23:32] the shop and it's got 14 errors on it, so 14 codes thrown on it, and it's just like
[23:37] good night. So. Some of these vehicles significant, really high mileage, and it's
[23:45] really hitting us, so. Yeah, we're not the only ones, but it is, it is hurting us.
[23:51] Yeah, thank you. You're welcome. Um, so last report I reported that we completed,
[23:58] we were selected for an FDA drug and alcohol audit, one of our, uh, a couple of our
[24:03] final things that we're working on, um, and Tammy may have already rolled this out,
[24:07] but we had a few additions and changes to our drug and alcohol policy for the county
[24:12] because of this, um, and then additionally, Uh, one of the findings was tracking
[24:17] of our scheduled drug tests. And I want to thank IT for helping us get that rolled
[24:24] out super quick. So they have that for us now to utilize. Um, so we'll be basically,
[24:28] when we schedule those random drug tests, we will have a designated area in which
[24:33] we can schedule those and I, um, HR can see those and know that we have scheduled
[24:38] those tests and follow up on that. Um, so, thank you to IT for getting right on that.
[24:43] Uh, and it's not like they don't have a bunch of projects. So, they're awesome. Uh,
[24:49] staffing updates, we still have the part-time driver position that we posted a few
[24:54] months back. Um, And then we just had a driver that did resign. He's going to be
[25:00] moving out of state, so we have a full-time driver position posted, but As I always
[25:05] say, I'm super blessed because it seems like right at that moment when we really
[25:09] need those applicants, they come in. So, in the last few days, I've had 3 applicants
[25:12] and they look very promising and we have a couple of interviews scheduled today.
[25:17] So, I'm just blessed because I've never really been without the drivers to speak
[25:21] of. Um, so, I'm super excited for those interviews that we have scheduled. Um, but
[25:27] if you know of anyone, we do have a full-time driver position that is going to be
[25:31] posted probably today. And then we still have the part-time. So, we'd be happy to
[25:36] take any other individuals that are interested in applying for that. Uh, service
[25:41] planning, we are currently in the middle of our planning process for this next year,
[25:47] uh, the planning that we have to do for our 5311 grant, uh, application process.
[25:53] Um, so, a lot of the same stuff there. I just reiterated for this, um, report. Uh,
[26:01] continued discussions on fare increases, but we aren't making really much headway
[26:05] in that discussion. There's just a lot going on in our TAC meeting, so we have tabled
[26:08] that to our December meeting again. Um, we're still looking at increased financial
[26:15] participation from our municipalities. I'm feeling better about those discussions,
[26:19] uh, We launched a community transportation needs assessment survey in October. So,
[26:25] you might see those QR codes floating around and I would encourage um anyone that
[26:30] you might know that might benefit from transportation to fill that out just to give
[26:33] us an idea of what their needs are for transportation in the valley. Um, so, the
[26:38] information we collect from this survey will help us with our 5311 grant application
[26:43] process. Um, we did move our annual public meetings from December to October, so
[26:49] I do have our Kalispell annual public meeting that will be held today this afternoon
[26:54] from 1:30 to 3, and that will be over at the Agency on Aging, well, the South Campus
[27:00] building up on the second floor meeting room. Um, and then this evening, we'll have
[27:04] our, uh, Whitefish annual public meeting that will be held at the Whitefish City
[27:09] Council chambers from 7 until 8:30. Um, We did participate.
[27:17] In a vendor expo, the Navigating Aging Expo that was held by IPAGA Healthcare, um,
[27:23] that was over at the mall, and we really enjoyed doing that. It was on a Saturday
[27:28] and we had a couple, uh, staff that were willing to go man that booth, and it was
[27:31] a good day, and we had a lot of good interactions with some folks from the public
[27:35] that really could benefit from our services. Um, so, for community engagement, um,
[27:42] I just want to put a reminder out there that we do have some openings on our transportation
[27:47] advisory Committee still. We did get some recently filled this year, but, um, we
[27:54] still have some openings. So, we would love to have anyone in the public that has
[27:57] an interest in transportation that would like to join us to apply for that. And our
[28:02] next Transportation Advisory Committee meeting will be held on December 3rd. Um,
[28:07] at the usual time over at the South Campus. Any questions? Yeah, you gave them naloxone.
[28:16] Training. Have any of the drivers had to use that? They have not. They have not,
[28:21] but they carry it all the time. They do. We have it on our vehicles at all times
[28:24] and we had some of them take it home. They have teenagers in the home or something.
[28:29] I mean, it's just, it's one of those things that you just never know nowadays who,
[28:34] what, where. It's good training to have, I think, and can make a real difference
[28:39] in saving someone's life. And you get that through the health department, yes. And
[28:44] really anyone can get those. They have an endless supply of it. Anyone that would
[28:48] like to pick that up, they can stop in there and get some and have it at their house,
[28:51] have it in their cars, wherever they'd like. So yeah, I've gone through there and
[28:55] seen this. They just got a box of it sitting out. Yeah, yeah, OK. That was my only
[29:00] question. Yeah, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, commissioner. We'll be in recess
[29:05] for about 2 minutes. It is 10 o'clock. I call our meeting back to order. Our first
[29:10] item up is an award and RFP for the Public Safety Facility commissioning agent. Good
[29:17] morning, Whitney Ashawald Commissioner's Office. We received 4 proposals for this
[29:22] commissioning agent, um. Two of the proposals did not submit the required signed
[29:28] cover sheet, so we did discuss it with legal, and since it was a requirement of the
[29:33] proposal, they recommended that those two be disqualified. So our review team moved
[29:38] forward with scoring the remaining two proposals. Um, Elkhorn Commissioning received
[29:43] a score of 615 and Northwest Technical Services received a score of 600. So our recommendation,
[29:51] excuse me, would be to move forward with Elkhorn commissioning.
[30:01] Mr. Chair, I move The uh uh To award the RFP for the Public Safety Facility
[30:09] commissioning agent to Elkhorn Elkhorn Commissioning. 2nd. I have a motion to 2nd
[30:16] is there further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor, aye, oppose same sign,
[30:21] motion carries.
[30:25] Our next item is consideration of authorization to publish an RFQ for the North Fork
[30:30] Guardrail Replacement Project. Yeah, this is just to start the process to hiring
[30:35] that engineering firm. So we had put it out um for them to submit proposals. Mr.
[30:41] Chair, I move authorization to publish an RFQ for North Fork Guardrail replacement
[30:47] project. Say again. I have a motion to second as there further discussion. Hearing
[30:53] none, all those in favor. Aye, aye, both same sign, motion carries. Thank you. We
[30:58] are in recess until 10:15.
[31:06] You have to go out cutting out on the river. Yeah, it's like Lucy Clark did look
[31:10] where they were up and they were.
[31:14] They were, you looked it up. There's several islands out there that are public. Are
[31:17] you ready? It is 10:15. Um, our first item up is consideration of SIA for East Village
[31:25] phase one.
[31:30] Good morning, Commissioners. Ella Jordan, Planning and Zoning. Uh, so there has been
[31:35] a request to extend the SIA for Eagle Run or East Village, sorry, um, East Village
[31:43] Phase One. The applicant originally provided cash collateral which remains on deposit
[31:48] with the Fly County treasurer and continues to be valid at this time. The Original
[31:57] SIA expires on October 15th of 2026. Uh, the extension deadline request was,
[32:05] uh, On September 1st, 2026. And uh they have provided the
[32:13] uh 125% surety in cash.
[32:18] Uh, they're requesting to extend the SIA to January 31st of
[32:26] 2027. 27 202,020. Uh, recruitment required
[32:34] improvement shall be fully completed by January 31st, 2027. Mr. Chair, I move SIA
[32:41] extension for East Village Phase One in the amount of $235,000. 2nd, I have a question.
[32:49] Um, Mr. Chair, uh, could you, and this may be for Eric, Eric, are you the representative?
[32:56] Um, I represent WSI. I'm not OK, so what has been done in the past year
[33:04] on this that, that would say it's an extension, but they're moving ahead with, with
[33:09] work? Um, I don't believe we've been given that information. You might have a better,
[33:16] um, understanding of. Yeah, it's They've completed
[33:21] $5,438,611.61. And they have 188,000 left, which
[33:29] with the 125% remaining is 235,000.
[33:36] I just, and I didn't, I didn't find that, Commissioner Holmquist, where did you find
[33:42] what they've completed in the past year? I got it in my inbox in my office, and it's
[33:48] on the back. Page of that If you go back to the last page, it'll show
[33:56] you, yeah, yeah, yeah, so yeah, we should have all got that. I think we got that.
[34:02] I just wasn't sure which, which of that's been completed since they got the original
[34:07] SIA. Looks like they've completed 97% if you go back to page.
[34:15] Go back one page and it'll show you what's 100% completed. OK. It listed dryer
[34:22] utilities, OK, all that. All right. I just, I, I just wanted to make sure that this
[34:27] project hasn't stalled at all. And, uh, so have you been out on site? No, not for
[34:33] this. OK. All right, thank you. So I have a motion in a second. Is there further
[34:37] discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor. Aye, aye oppose same sign. Motion carries.
[34:45] Our next item is a consideration of an SIA extension for Eagle Run.
[34:53] Hello Jordan planning and zoning. Um, so we received the request to extend the timeline
[34:59] for the previously approved SIA for Eagle Run. Uh, the applicant has provided a revised
[35:06] agreement, the required engineer certification, and an updated letter of credit which
[35:10] carries a maturity date of September 30th, 2027. Um, the original SIA was set to
[35:17] expire on August 16th of 2026 and the deadline was July 6, 2026. Um,
[35:25] the letter of credit that is currently Um
[35:31] On file expires on October 15, 2026. Do you have any questions,
[35:39] Mr. Chair? I'd move. Um, the SA extension for Eagle Run.
[35:47] I'll second it. I have a motion to second it for the discussion. Mr. Chair, I have
[35:51] the same question. Do you know what's been completed in the past year? Um, let's
[35:57] see. It looks like
[36:02] The improvements have not been completed. They've provided. A TDNH
[36:10] Engineering provided an invoice of the work completed and the work remaining. And
[36:16] those work, the work completed, do you know if that was in the past year or if that
[36:21] was before that, and I think. Coming up to rescue you, Erin planning and zoning,
[36:26] um, so we don't require that info with their SIA extension request, um, but if we
[36:31] were to have the previous SIA and the, you know, estimates, um, that would, I guess,
[36:35] allow for a comparison, but I don't believe we have that in front of us right now
[36:39] at this moment, um, but yeah, we just We, we don't require that. Only for we don't
[36:44] do a site visit to make not until the essay has been completed, then we go out and
[36:48] verify. OK, thank you. Is there further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor.
[36:54] I propose same sign. Motion carries. Our next one up is consideration of an SIA extension
[37:02] for Tamarack Meadows. Erin, effort planning and zoning. This is a request to extend
[37:07] the SIA for Tamarack Meadows. The um estimates from the engineer indicates that they
[37:14] are 99% complete, um. There's an existing bond that will not expire
[37:21] um in the New SIA would expire June 30th, 2027. And it is
[37:29] in the amount of $94,693.75.
[37:37] I move SIA extension for Tamarack Meadows in the amount of $94,693.75.
[37:47] I have a motion to second for further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor.
[37:51] Aye, aye, oppose same sign. Motion carries. We are in recess until 10:30.
[38:00] It is 10:30. I call our meeting back to order. Our first item up is Preliminary plat
[38:08] for Homestead Bluff.
[38:13] Erin Eppert, planning and zoning. So, this is a request for preliminary plot approval
[38:18] of a one-lot residential subdivision. The property is approximately 25 acres and
[38:23] it's currently the open space area for the homestead at Whitefish Phase One. and
[38:29] so, it has their kind of entrance, um, gate and guard check and mailboxes and kind
[38:35] of a, um, little, um, golf course. Um, and then, The proposed residential lot would
[38:43] kind of break off the piece along Star Meadows Road. It'd be about 11 acres in size,
[38:48] and the rest would remain open space. Um, and so, There was one agency comment. It
[38:56] was from the Road and Bridge Department, and it kind of alludes to some previous
[39:01] correspondence that uh Dave Parenti had had with the, with Eric Mulcahy um regarding
[39:06] direct access for this lot onto Star Meadows Road. Um, it's not ideal, but they,
[39:12] uh, agreed to it due to just the topography in this case, it sounds like it would
[39:16] be difficult to get a driveway onto the internal subdivision road. So Dave was in
[39:21] agreement with that, and you'll notice there's a condition. The planning board during
[39:27] their public hearing, they amended condition number 19 and then added condition number
[39:34] 20, which says there shall not be any future resubdivision of Lot 1, so not just
[39:38] prohibiting um additional driveways, but also just prohibiting additional subdivision
[39:43] of the lot. Um, I think that's all I have at this point, unless you have any questions
[39:47] for me.
[39:50] No, I, I think we can go into findings.
[40:00] Number one, impacts to the natural environment associated with streams, wetlands,
[40:04] and floodplains are expected to be limited. A stream feature is identified on the
[40:09] National Hydrography data set. And is addressed in the submitted Riparian Resource
[40:15] Management Plan. However, the environmental assessment characterizes the feature
[40:19] as a man-made water feature. The Riparian Resource Management Plan identifies the
[40:24] feature as an intermittent creek associated with the existing pitch and putt course
[40:28] and does not propose a vegetative buffer. The subject property does not contain wetlands
[40:33] or a 100-year floodplain. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Number 2, no impacts from soils
[40:39] and geological hazards are anticipated because the preliminary plan indicates the
[40:43] proposed building site is located outside of areas with slopes greater than 25%,
[40:49] and soil types on the subject property appear suitable for development. Agreed.
[40:58] Number 3, the subdivision is expected to have minimal impact on vegetation, wildlife,
[41:02] and wildlife habitat. Vegetation on the property consists primarily of coniferous
[41:07] forest and landscaped open space. While species of concern have documented occurrences
[41:12] in the surrounding area, the property does not contain identified critical plant
[41:17] communities, key wildlife areas, or critical wildlife habitat. The proposed subdivision
[41:22] would create a single residential lot within an existing 24 acre open space area
[41:27] with the remaining open space continuing to provide wildlife habitat. The existing
[41:32] water feature is man-made and does not provide riparian habitat. Existing CCNRs address
[41:38] potential wildlife impacts associated with pets and wildlife attractants. No comments
[41:43] were received from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Additionally, a weed control
[41:47] plan will be required prior to final pot approval. Agreed. Agreed, and I have a question,
[41:52] Erin. Um, uh, this has been mentioned twice in here so far. The, the man-made, um,
[41:59] water. Effects or whatever it's called um. Can we actually use it if it's man-made?
[42:05] Can we use it as something that could possibly restrict anything? Because if it's
[42:10] man-made, it could also be removed.
[42:15] Um, you mean can like a vegetative buffer be required, or yeah, well, right now we're,
[42:21] we're considering this as, as a man-made feature, but before it was a man-made feature.
[42:29] Was it So in other words, if man made it, man could take it away, would it then be
[42:36] something that would not affect That we would not consider in this. If it, if
[42:44] there was no stream present, um, yeah, it's like I said, it's showing up on both
[42:51] the um
[42:54] The data set on the IMA as well as the uh National Wetlands Inventory you'll see
[43:00] it's uh you know noted there um this is the first time I've seen us considered a
[43:05] man-made feature. OK, yeah, it's a little unusual um. But I think it's just really
[43:12] a matter of noting it is there, um, but yeah, based on the, the, um, The information
[43:18] provided by the applicant's technical representative, it does not appear to be naturally
[43:24] occurring, um, but they still did provide that riparity resource management management
[43:28] plan. Great. Thank you. Number 4, there would be minimal impact on agriculture, timber
[43:35] production, and agricultural water user facilities as a result of the proposed subdivision
[43:40] because the subject property is not used for agriculture or timber production and
[43:44] does not contain agricultural water user facilities, and the proposed subdivision
[43:48] would not require access from the adjacent US Forest Service land. Agreed, agreed.
[43:55] Number 5, the proposed subdivision is anticipated to have minimal impact on water
[43:59] and wastewater services. Lot 1 would be served by a proposed individual well and
[44:03] septic system, while the existing wells and septic system within open space A would
[44:09] remain unchanged. The proposed water supply and wastewater. Disposal systems will
[44:13] be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the
[44:17] Flathead City County Health Department as applicable prior to final Platte approval.
[44:22] Agreed. Agreed. Number 6. Impacts related to stormwater drainage are anticipated
[44:27] to be minimal because a conceptual stormwater management plan. Has been submitted
[44:31] in accordance with Section 7.13 of the Flathead County Subdivision regulations. Lot
[44:37] 1 qualifies for a stormwater exemption, and detention swales are proposed within
[44:41] open space A to manage stormwater runoff. The stormwater management plan will be
[44:46] required to be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
[44:50] for compliance with applicable state standards prior to final Plat approval. Agreed.
[44:56] Agreed. Number 7, impacts on solid waste disposal would be acceptable with standard
[45:01] conditions because the subdivision would utilize contract haul services for solid
[45:04] waste disposal. Agreed. Number 8. Impacts to air quality and noise are anticipated
[45:10] to be minimal because the construction-related noise and vibration will be temporary.
[45:15] The proposed residential use is not anticipated to result in noise levels or activity
[45:19] substantially different from those typical of a residential area. Primary access
[45:24] roads are paved, and a dust control plan will be required to mitigate potential dust
[45:28] impacts during construction and development activity. Agreedy.
[45:34] Number 9, the proposed subdivision would have minimal impacts on area roads. Lot
[45:39] 1 would be accessed from an existing approach onto Star Meadows Road due to site
[45:43] topography. The addition of 11 residential lot is expected to generate approximately
[45:49] 9.43 average daily trips. The Flathead County Road and Bridge Department requested
[45:54] that further subdivision of Lot 1 be prohibited, and the condition of approval will
[45:59] prohibit additional access onto Star Meadows Road. An approach permit from the Flathead
[46:04] County Road and Bridge Department will be required prior to final Platte approval.
[46:08] No pedestrian or bicycle easement is required. Agreed. Agreed. Number 10. The property
[46:14] is located within the Star Meadows Rural Fire District and the Wildland Urban Interface.
[46:20] The subdivision will be required to comply with applicable county addressing and
[46:24] emergency response requirements. A wildland fire fuels reduction in maintenance plan.
[46:29] Has been provided and includes ongoing fuel reduction and maintenance measures. Written
[46:35] verification from the local fire protection authority that the approved plan has
[46:39] been completed will be required prior to final Plat approval. Agreed. Agreed. Number
[46:45] 11, the subdivision will be served by the Flathead County Sheriff's Office, which
[46:49] did not provide comment, and emergency response times will vary depending on deputy
[46:54] availability. Emergency medical services are expected to be provided by the Star
[46:59] Meadows Rural Fire District and the alert service through Logan Health Medical Center.
[47:03] Agreed. Agreed. Number 12. Impacts on local services, including schools, mail delivery,
[47:10] and recreation are expected to be minimal. The proposed subdivision is anticipated
[47:15] to generate approximately 1 additional student for the local school districts. No
[47:20] parkland dedication is required and written approval from the local postmaster will
[47:24] be required prior to final plot approval. Agreed, green. Number 13. Impacts to public
[47:31] health and safety from high voltage electric lines, high pressure gas lines, Superfund
[47:36] sites, abandoned landfills, mines, or sewer treatment plants are not anticipated
[47:41] because those features do not exist on the property and the proposed subdivision
[47:45] is not located within an airport influenced area. Number 14. The proposed subdivision
[47:51] would not adversely impact historical features because no known historical, archaeological,
[47:57] or cultural sites exist on the subject property. Agreed. Agreed. Number 15. The preliminary
[48:02] platte would conform to all provisions of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act
[48:06] if it contains all elements required to meet state survey requirements, which would
[48:11] be determined when it is reviewed by the Flathead County Examining Land Surveyor
[48:15] prior to final Platte approval. Agreed. Number 16. The proposed subdivision has been
[48:21] reviewed as a major subdivision in accordance with statutory criteria and standards
[48:25] outlined in Chapter 5 of the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations, effective October
[48:30] 9, 2025. Agreed. Number 17. The preliminary plot identifies adequate easements for
[48:37] utilities to serve the subdivision. All other easements associated with this subdivision
[48:43] and the subdivided property shall be located on the final plot to satisfy applicable
[48:48] requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and the Flathead County
[48:52] subdivision regulations. Agreed. Agreed. Number 18. Legal and physical access to
[48:58] the proposed lot would be provided by an individual driveway approach onto Star Meadows
[49:03] Road, a paved county collector road within a 60-foot wide right of way. Agreed. Number
[49:09] 19. The proposed subdivision is not located within a neighborhood plan area and the
[49:13] property is not zoned. The project is generally consistent with the Flathead County
[49:18] growth policy as subdivision review regulations implement the policy's goals and
[49:22] standards. Agreed. Agreed. Number 20. Pursuant to section 2.12 FCSR, preliminary
[49:30] plot approvals remain valid for 3 years, necessitating specific procedural deadlines
[49:35] for final plot submittals, 45 working days before expiration, and extension requests,
[49:41] 30 working days before expiration to ensure orderly administrative review and timely
[49:46] project completion. Agreed, agreed. Number 21. Before final Platt approval, the applicant
[49:52] must demonstrate substantial compliance with the approved preliminary Platt and either
[49:57] complete all required improvements or enter into a subdivision improvement agreement
[50:01] with an appropriate financial guarantee. Agreed, agreed.
[50:07] Mr. Chair, I move the findings as read. 2, I have a motion as second. Is there further
[50:12] discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor. Aye, aye, both same sign. Motion carry.
[50:19] Mr. Chair, move preliminary platform, said bluff. Second, I have a motion and second
[50:24] is there further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor. Aye, both same sign.
[50:30] Motion carries.
[50:35] Oh, our next item up is consideration of lakeshore permit, FLP-26-88 for Alisa Brewster,
[50:43] flathead activity, boat lift.
[50:48] Good morning, Kevin Shermer of Flathead County.
[50:52] Looking at my, yes, that's, I don't, oh, you were, oh, OK, sorry.
[51:00] It's OK. Uh, Kevin Ser, Flathead County Planning and Zoning. Good morning. This is
[51:07] for the FLP 2688.
[51:14] Which is
[51:21] Put it the wrong
[51:28] Yes, um, the owner being, uh, Mission View Terrace, HOA, and the applicant being.
[51:36] Brewster, the applicant is requesting to install an 11 ft by 9 ft
[51:43] freestanding boat lift in boat slip 103 in an existing dock in the
[51:51] private marina owned by Mission View Terrace HOA. The property is an existing marina.
[51:59] This project does not increase the impervious cover. No mechanical machinery will
[52:06] be used to install the boat lift. All debris will be removed from the site and no
[52:12] construction materials will be stockpiled or stored within the lake or lake shore
[52:16] protection zone. All work will be done within the LPZ and no equipment will be in
[52:22] contact with the lake. Um, Kevin, you rec we received some, um, public comment.
[52:30] What came in late last night in our emails, but that was forwarded to you this morning.
[52:34] Yes. Have you had a chance to look at that briefly? Yes, I did briefly. So on this
[52:39] particular one. It talks about Some
[52:47] Clerical errors in which boat slip it is. Can you address that?
[52:58] Says that the draft permitted certificate states that lift is installed in boat slip
[53:02] 103. However, the applicant said slip 21. And photographed and handwritten notes
[53:10] referenced Dock 21 near Lake Shore Drive. So there's some Correct, it should be docked
[53:17] slip 21. I'm sorry, it should be in slip 21. OK, so can you explain why there's
[53:26] Why the discrepancy? No, right, there's these errors.
[53:32] No, no, OK.
[53:36] There was also
[53:39] A talk about also an error. It said the permit applicant requested 11 by 11 ft. But
[53:45] the permit is 11 by 9 ft. Can you address that?
[53:57] I know we got these late and I, and it's, it's unfortunate because I don't know that,
[54:02] I don't see that, I see you haven't had really time to look at this. I haven't had
[54:06] time to address that.
[54:16] I have not had time to review that specific. I have to review that, OK. There's also,
[54:21] well, you can go down the rest of it. They're talking about the authorization form
[54:25] and having the OK of the HOA board, and you got it all, yeah, and on the HOA board
[54:31] for that. So they were, they signed on the applicant. On the application itself giving
[54:36] you authorization, so the HOA did that's covered, that's covered, OK. So
[54:46] I think it's imperative we get our paperwork correct, correct, and it is for, um,
[54:52] it's we're not changing the dimensions of the marina. It's gonna be, uh, inside the
[54:56] specific slips that are already evidence historically established, right? Yeah, it
[55:02] doesn't change anything because it's just a boat lift. There's no impervious coverage,
[55:06] and there's none of that going on, um, it wouldn't impact setbacks or any of that.
[55:12] So, so what is the Controlling Um narrative. Is
[55:19] it the permit that you write or what the applicant
[55:26] Brings in what controls the narrative and are we Um I, I don't know
[55:34] I'm just trying to figure out if, cause a lot of times we get impervi coverage, it's
[55:38] not, and that's gonna come up in these other ones. This may be a little different
[55:42] than what the applicant said, but then you guys do your research. Right, correct.
[55:49] And then you come up with maybe a different number. Is that the controlling number
[55:53] of the permit for the for uh impervious coverage we do that uh with our own measurements
[56:00] and we put it into an Excel spreadsheet to allow it to calculate much more accurately
[56:04] than um some of the dimensioning that we receive. Sure. So even though the applicant
[56:10] may provide you with Something that's not exactly accurate or something that you
[56:16] think is accurate.
[56:20] The prevailing
[56:24] Measurement is what you put in there. Tara, thank you for coming. Could you kinda
[56:30] address that for me, please? Sorry, I just happened to be here. Um, so neither one
[56:38] controls until the permit is finalized and signed, so. Let's just talk about
[56:45] the 9 by 11 or 11 by 11 issue, um. That
[56:53] I don't know if that is actually something that's double checked by planning staff
[56:57] or not, but If the applicant Submitted
[57:06] A request for 11 by 11. And then it was just simply a typo
[57:14] that um planning transcribed it as 9 by 11.
[57:21] That's, that's, it should be considered for 11 by 11 if planning office
[57:28] decides that. No, they can't have 11 by 11. We can only give them 9 by 11. Then
[57:36] there needs to be some explanation for that. In writing, yeah, whether it's a staff
[57:43] report or whatever, but if the applicant asks for Well, it's not there, but if you
[57:50] say the applicant asked for 11 by 9 and, and had a permit for 11 by 11, that's not
[57:54] a problem. It's going small, got going asking for bigger. It doesn't have to. It's
[57:59] gotta be within that size, right? Uh, or is that correct? However, you know,
[58:07] 11/11 could be the standard size, the, the, uh. Planning office
[58:15] permits or it just could be the biggest size. The problem is gonna be later
[58:23] because that permit follows the property, right? So if we permit 11 by 11,
[58:31] they only need 11 by 9 now, and the regs change. To only allow 11 by 9.
[58:41] they're out of compliance. There could just be, yeah, there could just be a discrepancy
[58:46] in the future. There's a potential discrepancy. Maybe we should table this until
[58:51] they figure that out. Is that? If we can't, if we can't figure out and come up with
[58:57] an adequate explanation for the difference for the record, then we should. OK. Do
[59:02] you have any explanation for the 11 by 11 or 11 by 9, a simple clerical transaction,
[59:07] not at this time, OK. All right.
[59:13] I'm gonna move to table. Uh, consideration lake shore permit FLP 26-88 Lisa
[59:21] Brewster flathead activity boat lift. I have a motion in a second is for further
[59:27] discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor. Aye, aye oppose same sign motion carries.
[59:35] Um Our next item up is consideration of Lakeshore permit
[59:41] FLP-26-80 JM Real Estate Holdings Flathead Activity. Install canopy and
[59:49] baffle board white wall.
[59:53] This is for Lake Lake Shore Construction Permit FLP 2680. For JM
[1:00:00] Reals State Holdings LLC, the applicant proposes to construct a 28 ft by 16 ft
[1:00:08] canopy over the dock slip and an 18 ft of baffle board wave wall around the southeast
[1:00:16] wing of the existing permitted dock, FLP 2589. The additional 448 square
[1:00:24] feet. of impervious coverage over the water increases the overall impervious coverage.
[1:00:31] Over the water to 928 square feet, which is well within the allowed
[1:00:37] 2800. 24 square feet for this property. All debris will be removed from and no construction
[1:00:44] materials will be stockpiled or stored within the lake shore protection zone. All
[1:00:48] work will be done within the LPZ and no equipment will come in contact with the water.
[1:00:55] Mr. Chair, I have questions on this. Yeah, go ahead. Again, we've received public
[1:01:00] comment where it talks about a discrepancy between what was applied for
[1:01:07] and what planning and zoning determined was the actual footage, who takes precedent
[1:01:14] there, and will the permit. Randy, can you get closer to your mic? I'm sorry. Thank
[1:01:19] you. Could you talk about that a little bit? It's only a 9 ft discrepancy, but it
[1:01:24] gets back to what Tara was talking about with if we don't get it right to begin with,
[1:01:29] then it could cause problems down the road. We'll take their drawings and plug each
[1:01:35] of the dimensions specifically into some Excel's spreadsheet, which then calculates
[1:01:41] the total for us. It's more accurate than. By the hand estimations. OK. And then
[1:01:47] there's another comment that we received that talks about a narrative describing
[1:01:53] environmental impacts as minor disruption of wildlife habitat, but temporary will
[1:01:57] increase wildlife habitat once complete. What do we have for documentation that actually
[1:02:02] shows that? Is that just the planner's choice in language, or do we have something
[1:02:08] from FWP or somebody? Uh, US Fish Wildlife, somebody that says that I had done research
[1:02:15] on the baffle boards and placements and how that impacts whether it's a positive
[1:02:19] or negative impact on the environment and what I've found through the through that
[1:02:24] research, uh, and, and where, what did you use for your research, uh, the various
[1:02:30] through FWP as well as other, uh, wildlife, uh, OK, lake shore, uh, websites,
[1:02:37] OK. OK, and then is there a requirement when we put baffle boards in, is there a
[1:02:43] requirement for um Some type of uh Um, engineering confirmation that says that
[1:02:51] this is actually the 3 ft difference. No, no, it's just it's the same as if they
[1:02:56] installed a different length of their dock that we would, our, uh, staff would go
[1:03:02] out to measure it to make sure. So we'll, we'll make a confirmation before we, uh,
[1:03:07] before we release it is, is complete, correct? OK, thank you. Did you cover the 2nd
[1:03:13] to permit 18 linear feet of breakwater baffle boards? I don't think we covered that,
[1:03:20] no.
[1:03:22] about that and condition number 12 of the draft permit. Um, it talks about the applicant
[1:03:29] file contains no site evaluation profiles or water depth measurements. Is that that
[1:03:35] would be after the fact when we measure to see, make sure that they are clear of
[1:03:39] it. It does not increase the impervious coverage, OK.
[1:03:45] So Mr. Chair, I would move in, and thank you for providing that additional information.
[1:03:52] So Mr. Chair, I would move Lake Shore Permit FOP 2680 JM Real Estate Holdings, flathead
[1:03:59] Activity install canopy and baffle board wave wall. I have a motion to second for
[1:04:05] further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor, Mr. Chair, let me back up a
[1:04:13] little bit. We haven't done findings yet, and so I'd withdraw my motion. OK. Who
[1:04:18] withdraw it until I'll withdraw my second withdraw that. I'm going to the findings
[1:04:23] on the finding of fact, the design standards established by Flathead County Lake
[1:04:27] and Lakeshore Protection regulations were developed to satisfy all applicable statutory
[1:04:31] and policy criteria for the permit issuance. Based on the substantive administrative
[1:04:38] review, the project adheres to the standards set forth in Sections 4.3A2A governing
[1:04:44] docks, wharfs, and piers. And 4.3CA governing shelters, uh, lifting, uh, floating
[1:04:52] lifts and shore stations and is therefore in full compliance with Section 4.1 policy
[1:04:58] criteria. Agreed, agreed. Mr. Chair, I, I move the finding as read.
[1:05:07] Second. I have a motion in a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none,
[1:05:11] all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Both signed. Motion carries. So Mr. Chair, now back
[1:05:16] to, uh, Lake Shore permit for FLP 2680. Um, I move Lake Shore permit FLP 2680 JM
[1:05:24] Real Estate Holdings, flathead Activity install canopy and baffle board wave wall.
[1:05:29] Mr. Chair. Second, I have a motion a second is there further discussion. Hearing
[1:05:35] none, all those in favor. Aye, aye oppose same sign motion carries. Our next item
[1:05:40] is consideration of lake shore permit FLP-26-45 for a Philip Hambly beaver
[1:05:48] activity. Replace a floating dock.
[1:05:55] This is for Lake and Lake Shore construction permit FLP 2645,
[1:06:03] owner being Montana DNRC. The applicants propose to replace an existing nonconforming
[1:06:10] 24 ft by 16 ft floating dock with a 14 ft gangway within the lake and lake shore
[1:06:17] protection zone of Beaver Lake. There is currently an existing dock 140
[1:06:25] ft by 4 ft gangway.
[1:06:30] 18 ft by 10 ft shed.
[1:06:35] 18 ft by 10 ft patio within the LPZ. The proposed floating
[1:06:43] dock shall be constructed by composite decking and aluminum framing measuring 24
[1:06:48] ft by 16 ft. And Will be anchored with concrete anchors and galvanized chain floats
[1:06:56] of our polyvinyl filled with foam. The dock configuration per submitted drawing.
[1:07:05] Safety cleats will be installed on the decking surface. The proposed replacement
[1:07:11] dock will result in 384 ft of
[1:07:17] over the water pervious surface based on the 206 linear feet of shoreline of linear
[1:07:25] feet of lake shore frontage. The maximum allow of over the water cover is
[1:07:31] 1,641 square feet. Pursuant to FCLR
[1:07:38] 4.2E2A, the proposed impervious coverage of 206 ft of
[1:07:46] square feet is within the allowable limits. The DNRC, as landowner, authorizes submission
[1:07:52] of this application by email. The dock will be installed by floating it into place
[1:07:57] and secured. To existing concrete anchors and galvanized chain.
[1:08:05] No pile driving or mechanical excavation of the lake bed is proposed. No materials
[1:08:10] or debris will be stored or stockpiled within the LPZ. All construction waste will
[1:08:14] be disposed of offsite. No existing vegetation will be removed within the LPZ in
[1:08:20] connection with this project. So again, we received some public comment on this one.
[1:08:27] did you have an opportunity to go through that? Briefly
[1:08:36] They're removing the existing dock, so. That wasn't as pertinent as the dock that
[1:08:44] they're proposing to install, right?
[1:08:48] So Mr. Chair, I do have a question on that. This is an existing nonconforming because
[1:08:54] it was built in 2016. It was nonconforming then. They didn't get a permit. Is that
[1:09:00] correct? That is correct, and that's the only verbiage that we have language that
[1:09:04] is currently at the time that we could use for that. And so if we didn't get a permit
[1:09:10] at the time of If they didn't get a permit at the time of construction, does that
[1:09:15] qualify them as nonconforming just because we didn't catch it? It was considered
[1:09:22] nonconforming as a result. If we look under MCA 757218 from Bill
[1:09:29] 168, it talks to those being a
[1:09:36] Um, structure name. Sorry.
[1:09:44] Not as A nonconforming, legally nonconforming, but as a prescriptive structure because
[1:09:51] it's been in existence for more than 3 years. So there is a, there is a limitation,
[1:09:57] the statute of limitations, basically 3 years if you, you don't get caught, um. Then
[1:10:04] then now it becomes nonconforming, is that the definition? OK. And then they're removing
[1:10:10] this. Is the new structure being built? Is it conforming then the new structure will
[1:10:16] be conforming, so fully conforming. They're getting rid of the nonconforming, correct?
[1:10:20] OK, thank you. There was a question on The brewery's coverage again, could you cover
[1:10:27] that?
[1:10:35] We took their dimensions and for the existing dock, put it into an Excel spreadsheet
[1:10:41] and the calculations that we came out with. So, it says in your third paragraph,
[1:10:45] the dock will result in 384 square feet of overwater and perverse surface based on
[1:10:51] the 200 ft of linear frontage. But then below that you say the proposed and perverse
[1:10:58] coverage of 206 square feet. Is that a typographical error? That's a typographical
[1:11:03] error, so that should be 384, 384 and still well within the 1,641. So that's
[1:11:10] OK. So that takes care of that.
[1:11:14] Randy touched on the width of the dock.
[1:11:21] Um
[1:11:35] there was some Consistencies in the fee receipts. Can you address that?
[1:11:46] In the fees Says minor fee inconsistencies. Fee receipts show the county charged
[1:11:53] FLP 2545 after the fact, $628 on April 23, 2026.
[1:12:01] Misidentifying the permit year while the current file is processed as FLP 2545 or
[1:12:07] 26-45. So there's two.
[1:12:12] 2 different numbers on the fee. From what I see that the receipt total being the
[1:12:19] 200 or 62831. Minus 1830 for
[1:12:27] a total for the 1610 on the receipt.
[1:12:33] And if that is, I, that's the furthest I have on that. So they had to get a after
[1:12:39] the fact permit in April of 26. On that oversized dock and then
[1:12:47] they removed it and put in a dock that was conforming, correct? Is that correct?
[1:12:54] They received an after the fact from the existing it being an existing dock that
[1:12:59] was not permitted. Yes, so they had to get that all lined up and done right before
[1:13:05] they get the permit to put the new dock and that was conforming, I believe so. Yeah,
[1:13:11] that's what it seems like to me. So Mr. Chair, question on the few receipts, and
[1:13:16] I know we're getting in the weeds on this, but I think it's important that we get
[1:13:20] very accurate information. It's FLP 25-45, which you would identify it as something
[1:13:26] that had been issued in. 2025, is that correct?
[1:13:33] It would have been started, yeah, initially initiated in 25. It may have for whatever
[1:13:40] reason carried over into 26. This is so then so it was actually even though it was
[1:13:48] FLP 2545, it was actually not issued until 26, is that correct? The updated Application
[1:13:55] for the permit that we have for this one was received on April 22nd of 26. OK,
[1:14:03] so, so. I'm trying to figure out what the note from Citizens for Better Flathead
[1:14:11] who had the public comment. It starts out as FLP 25-45, but we didn't actually get
[1:14:18] receipt of it until April 23, 2026. Is that how that worked?
[1:14:25] I think if you look at if I look at the folder, it was typed out as a FLP 25 and
[1:14:32] hand. Penned over to 26, which could have been a clerical error when they typed it
[1:14:37] initially. So it's actually, it's actually in 26, correct, 2645. All right, so the
[1:14:44] clerical error there.
[1:14:47] OK. OK.
[1:14:52] I don't have anything else I guess. I do have a question, Mr. Chair. Does this mean
[1:14:56] that we need to To correct through emotion, um, the, the
[1:15:04] error that we identified a little earlier, um, the 26 or 25, no, not that the, uh,
[1:15:10] the other one, Sorry, I'm square footage going back to, yeah, the square footage
[1:15:17] from The 206 identifies in the permit to 384. Do we need to change that by motion,
[1:15:26] we discussed it. Do we need to make a formal motion if it's 206 is on the actual
[1:15:33] draft permit, then yes, you need to make a motion. See what I see says here the proposed
[1:15:39] replacement dock will result in 384 square feet of over the water. Impervious surface
[1:15:44] based on 206. Linear feet of lake shore frontage. So that's the difference between
[1:15:52] one's impervious coverage and one's linear feet. Or is one of those wrong? No, it's
[1:15:57] the next sentence. The proposed impervious coverage of, oh, that's the 206 ft is
[1:16:02] put in there as a mistake instead of 384. They took linear feet instead of square
[1:16:06] feet. I see that. This is the permit, so we probably should make a motion on that.
[1:16:11] Yes, Mr. Chair, I move to change what we have as the proposed impervious coverage
[1:16:17] of 2,0006 square feet, 206, 206 within the allowable limits, change to 206 to 384
[1:16:24] square feet, Mr. Chair. Second, I have a motion in a second. Is there further discussion?
[1:16:30] Hearing none. All those in favor. Aye aye. Post same sign motion carries.
[1:16:38] And Findings. Yeah, we'll go into our findings. I have one more thing. Excuse me.
[1:16:46] On the very first sentence, the applicant proposes to replace an existing nonconforming
[1:16:52] 24 ft by 16 ft floating dock with a 14 ft gangway. Is that accurate?
[1:17:00] Yes, it looks like on the 140 ft gang by 4 ft should be a 14 ft. By 4 ft
[1:17:08] gangway, it's an extra it's type O. OK, so, so that should be changed. OK,
[1:17:15] so I move. To change that language on the project description for Lake Shore
[1:17:22] Permit FLP 26-45 to 14.4 ft gangway. Second
[1:17:31] Is that right, or is it 140.4? It's 1414. OK, poor gangway.
[1:17:39] The 14 ft by 4 ft gangway.
[1:17:43] I have a motion in a second. Is there a further discussion? Just a question. So if
[1:17:50] that's not accurate, are the other numbers in there accurate? Yes, it was in the
[1:17:55] first line that ends with the floating dock with a 14-foot gangway, and then later
[1:18:00] in the same, the next sentence describes it as a 140 ft versus just added a 0 to
[1:18:05] the 14, correct. OK. So, the rest on the shed and the patio and all in the LPZ are
[1:18:12] correct? Correct. OK. Thank you.
[1:18:17] I have a motion. Did I get my motion right? OK. I have a motion a second.
[1:18:25] Is there further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor. Aye, aye, oppose same
[1:18:31] sign, motion carries. Now we can go into findings of fact. Findings of fact. The
[1:18:36] design standards established by Flathead County Lake and Lake Shore Protection regulations
[1:18:40] were developed to satisfy all applicable statutory and policy criteria for the permit
[1:18:46] issuance based upon a substantive. Administrative review. The project adheres to
[1:18:52] the standards set forth in Sections 2.7B governing nonconforming. 4.2A2 governing
[1:18:59] docks, wharves, piers, and is therefore in full compliance with Section 4.1 policy
[1:19:05] criteria. Agreed, Mr. Chair, I move the findings as read. 2nd, I have a motion is
[1:19:11] 2nd. Is there? Further discussion. Hearing that all those in favor, I opposed and
[1:19:18] signed motion carries. Mr. Chair, I move Lake Shore. Permit for
[1:19:26] FLP 2645 Philip Hamley beaver activity. Replace a floating dock. I have a
[1:19:34] motion in a second is there further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor.
[1:19:39] I oppose same sign motion carries.
[1:19:44] We can go on to
[1:19:47] Consideration of lake shore permit, FLP-26-78, Blaine and Robin Evanson on Lake
[1:19:55] Blaine activity for retainable. This is for FLP 2676 Blaine and
[1:20:03] Robin Evanson. The applicant proposes repairing an existing nonconforming dry stack
[1:20:09] natural stone shoreline retaining wall. The repair consists of reset seating and
[1:20:14] securing the rotated base core stones back to their original positions within the
[1:20:21] existing wall footprint. A displaced toe armoring will be restored. Using natural
[1:20:28] angular rip wrap sourced from an upland location outside of the lake shore protection
[1:20:33] zone, all rock will be clean and free of silts, sands, and fines. The rip wrap will
[1:20:40] be replaced, placed over repaired or replaced filter fabric at a minimum slope of
[1:20:47] one horizontal to 2 vertical. Minor concrete work will be performed only where necessary
[1:20:54] to stabilize all existing. Existing wall stones in locations where rock alone cannot
[1:21:01] provide adequate support. All work will occur entirely within the existing nonconforming
[1:21:08] wall footprint at or landward of the mean annual high water elevation following the
[1:21:15] established shoreline contour with no lakeward extension of the land area. The repair
[1:21:21] length is approximately 15 linear feet and will require an estimated
[1:21:29] 6 cubic yards of angular rip wrap. Work will be completed using hand tools
[1:21:37] and small equipment operating exclusively from upland areas. No equipment will enter
[1:21:42] the lake or disturb the lake bed. All repairs will be conducted during seasonal low
[1:21:47] water when the work area is dry. This project is not proposing to add or remove impervious
[1:21:54] surface area on the property and will remain entirely within the existing retaining
[1:21:59] walls footprint consistent with Section 2.76 Flathead County Lake and Lake Shore
[1:22:04] Protection regulations, which Allows maintenance, repair and replacement of existing
[1:22:12] nonconforming structures provided the work does not expand or alter the established
[1:22:17] footprint. All debris will be removed from and no construction materials will be
[1:22:21] stockpiled or stored within the lake shore protection zone. All work will be done
[1:22:26] within the LPZ and no equipment will contact the lake.
[1:22:31] Mr. Chair, I have some questions. Um, do you know what year this was originally built?
[1:22:37] The nonconforming, was it within the 3 years or before the 3 years? It was before,
[1:22:43] according to the aerial photography. OK. So it would by law it would actually be
[1:22:50] existing nonconforming. We had a question about that in public comment that confirming.
[1:22:57] The Their their statement was that you can't. You can't call it nonconforming if
[1:23:05] it was built. After the standards were put in place, but that's not true if it's
[1:23:11] built within or before 3 years ago. It'll be a prescriptive structure. All right,
[1:23:18] Tara, does that make sense? Does that sound right? That is correct. OK.
[1:23:24] And then on the project it says it's not proposing to add or remove impervious surface
[1:23:31] area on the property. Is that correct, that none of this is going to impact impervious
[1:23:38] surface? Correct. They're taking existing stones and shoring them up. They're not
[1:23:42] adding to it or removing from it. Thank you.
[1:23:48] So Kevin on the uh said that Um You had sent a letter and put this
[1:23:56] on compliance hold. Can you address that? When we received the says this application
[1:24:02] prevents severe severe procedural regulatory complex. Office planning department
[1:24:08] records in the file reveal that on August 11, 2026, planner Kevin Sturmer placed
[1:24:14] this exact application on a formal compliance hold due to multiple uncorrected lake
[1:24:21] shore violations on the property, and then they list four of them. Are you familiar
[1:24:26] with those? And were those addressed?
[1:24:36] I'm not familiar with those.
[1:24:41] OK, so we don't know if those were Or if, uh, uh, you know, who knows, I don't know.
[1:24:47] Are they even pertinent to this file? Uh, we're not, yeah. I don't think it's pertinent
[1:24:53] to this specific application to stop the wall from falling over.
[1:25:02] OK.
[1:25:06] Um
[1:25:11] They also talk about uh the applicant is Scott Evenson. He's not the property owner.
[1:25:19] Listed owners are Blaine and Robin Evenson. Can you address that?
[1:25:40] The applicant is is the one who's gonna be doing the work. I do not know the relation
[1:25:47] between them, but the, the application was signed off by uh Blaine Evanson. OK, so
[1:25:55] Scott's in the paperwork, but Blaine signed it, correct. OK.
[1:26:05] OK.
[1:26:10] So I don't know. About the compliance hold.
[1:26:17] Um If we have outstanding violations. Would that affect this permit that we're
[1:26:25] doing today? I believe that the I believe I cannot attest that they are,
[1:26:32] are, but I believe that they were in compliance, or the file would have stayed over
[1:26:38] in the compliance area. And not have been brought back to my desk for completion.
[1:26:44] So you're not sure, but it wouldn't have come forward unless someone checked on those,
[1:26:48] correct?
[1:26:50] But we don't know What, what do you think, Tara? I don't. If there's nothing in the
[1:26:58] file to explain. Why it came off a compliance hold or if it even did.
[1:27:07] Then it needs to be tabled until we can find out those answers, OK. So we need to
[1:27:13] look into that probably. So Mr. Chair, I'd move to Table Lakeshore permit FLP 2678
[1:27:19] Blaine and Robin Evanson. Um, blame activity retaining wall. Second,
[1:27:27] I have a motion to seconded to further discussion. I, I do have a question, Kevin.
[1:27:32] How long ago did, uh, did this packet get finished being put together?
[1:27:39] Did, uh, in other words, how long ago was it? Was it complete and ready to come over
[1:27:44] to our office.
[1:27:52] I believe it was on the
[1:27:56] 9:14.
[1:28:00] So the 14th, when did it get, when was it on your website then? I, I don't know.
[1:28:06] I don't put the, that's not the section that I handle, OK. OK. And then, Ruby, how,
[1:28:12] how does that work? Um, they get it done on September 14th. Today is the 8th. Um,
[1:28:20] how long till it becomes public information? Um, we have to have it up. Hold on,
[1:28:27] Ruby, grab your ass here.
[1:28:32] We have to have it up 48 hours in advance, but it goes on much sooner than that.
[1:28:39] It gets listed and the files get put up there with it, so it really depends on how
[1:28:44] much time it gives, but at least a week, but usually much longer. Randy, what are
[1:28:51] you specifically looking for? What I'm looking for is several of these permits that
[1:28:56] come across. The public comment has listed concerns that they didn't have the information
[1:29:04] available in time to get to do the research on it because we got their letters this
[1:29:09] morning, which doesn't give us time to research whether they're correct or not. Um,
[1:29:16] I'm We're gonna see if we can find when it was submitted to. The commissioner's office
[1:29:24] And would that have been the first time that it was posted to the public? I don't
[1:29:28] know. That would be a question probably for April. OK.
[1:29:35] Um, I know all of that was posted last week when I sent it to you guys. OK.
[1:29:41] Last name And So the files themselves are in the office and available to the public
[1:29:49] at any time, and your files, normally, how long do you have that file complete before
[1:29:56] it gets to the commissioners?
[1:29:59] Usually, usually I'll get it complete and hand it over to the front office for them
[1:30:05] to process it and get it over to you and that usually happens within a day or two.
[1:30:09] But it's days in advance that your office actually has the paperwork in the office
[1:30:16] ready for anyone to look at. Days before it ever gets to our agenda, it's usually
[1:30:22] a week before we have usually a week, a week before there will be people who come
[1:30:26] in to look at specific files, but the files are there and even before they're completed,
[1:30:31] um, I've had people come in to look at their specific files to make sure their information
[1:30:37] and our agenda is usually posted weeks ahead of time. Um, usually a week, week and
[1:30:43] a half, week and a half, so about a week in there that all of this happens. It may
[1:30:48] not necessarily put all the documents into AV capture, but they are available over
[1:30:54] at the planning office. Is that correct? Correct. OK. And just to confirm, and this
[1:30:59] may be for Tara, uh, putting it on Navy capture is not required by law. Is that correct?
[1:31:06] Correct. And it's actually not required the um. That you post that
[1:31:13] stuff anywhere, it's becoming more and more generally accepted. Um And I know there
[1:31:21] are a few times things may come over to the commissioner's office, and we don't necessarily
[1:31:27] want
[1:31:30] You know, want the person who submitted it to the commissioner's office to post it
[1:31:36] somewhere online. Um, but with Things from the planning and zoning office like these,
[1:31:45] I think it's fairly certain cause there's You know, even if Planning says,
[1:31:52] oh, the applicant contacted me or we've got to change something. Or whatever, then
[1:32:00] I mean, it's still a public document, right, right. So at the planning office. It
[1:32:08] looks like this came over to the commissioner's office probably around the 23rd of
[1:32:13] September. Yeah, OK, so, so we did what was required by law, by, um, by having it
[1:32:21] available, planning and zoning it so that if people saw it posted. Even if we didn't
[1:32:26] have the document on AV capture, it was posted so that anybody that wanted to look
[1:32:30] at it could go to planning and zoning and look at the document. Is that correct?
[1:32:34] Yes, but I will tell you that um administrative staff over planning and zoning is
[1:32:40] being overwhelmed by records requests, and they're getting fulfilled, but last
[1:32:48] I talked to April, they're not guaranteeing anything in under 2 weeks. But people
[1:32:55] certainly can stay there in the office and look through the, you know, actually original
[1:33:01] copy of the file themselves, um, but they're not guaranteed a copy. So we do, so
[1:33:08] just because we get a, a document saying that you didn't provide what was legally
[1:33:14] required, um, isn't necessarily true, correct? OK, thank you.
[1:33:21] OK. OK. And we have tabled that, right? We voted on that. I think we voted. Did you
[1:33:28] vote? Let's just check before.
[1:33:34] You don't have a vote yet. Oh, we don't have a vote. OK. Is there further discussion?
[1:33:39] Hearing none, all those in favor, aye, aye oppose saying sign motion carries it's
[1:33:46] tabled, and we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't think we'd
[1:33:52] think. I am never coming over here.