[0:06] All right, big car. Thanks for being here, everybody. This is a meeting of the City

[0:11] of Polson Commission. It is October 5, 2026. If you would please join me again, I

[0:16] pledge of allegiance.

[0:20] I want to listen to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[0:26] of the Russian stands, one nation, an underdog, the indivisible with the liberty

[0:32] and justice for all. Thank you so much. Let me order another roll call for this meeting

[0:37] of the commission. Uh, Commissioner Rugglas here, here. McDonald is not here. Holly

[0:43] is not here. Schrader Young here, and Pardini is here. Thank you. Uh, agenda item

[0:48] 3 is the approval of the proposed agenda. Can I have a motion, please? So moved.

[0:53] Thank you. In a second, 2nd. Thanks. We have a motion from Commissioner Ruglas, a

[0:58] second from Commissioner Reard. Is there any commission discussion? The proposed

[1:01] agenda.

[1:04] Any public comment on the proposed agenda?

[1:08] Is everything online? No, ma'am. All right. Comment on the proposed agenda. I'm sorry,

[1:14] would you like to raise hands to make a comment, or how do you want to do this? Um,

[1:18] you would have to come up to the podium, please, and state your name. And this is

[1:22] on the proposed agenda for this evening.

[1:25] I assume we're still talking about the, the southern, um, that so that'll be agenda

[1:30] item 7 we're on agenda item what are we talking about now just the agenda itself

[1:35] procedure itself good practice. I don't have any comment. Government is complicated.

[1:43] All right. Seeing done, then we will take a vote, Commissioner Pardini, for, for

[1:51] young for weird for for this for Endeavor for so that motion. Carries, thank you.

[1:57] Agenda item 4 is public comment on significant matters to the public that are not

[2:02] on the agenda tonight. If you have any public comment, um, that doesn't include any

[2:07] agenda items, please come up to the podium and stay tuned in.

[2:14] Anything online, chief manager? No, ma'am. All righty, we'll move on then to our

[2:21] consent agenda, which is agenda item 5. The consent agenda consists of the July 30th,

[2:26] 2026 claims, July 30th, 2026 claims, August 31st, 2026 claims, the September

[2:34] 17th through 30th, 2026 claims, the city. Commission electronic public hearing meeting

[2:40] minutes of September 21, 2026. The city commission written summary public hearing

[2:45] meeting minutes of September 21, 2026. The city commission electronic meeting minutes

[2:50] from September 21, 2026, and the city commission written summary meeting minutes,

[2:56] September 21, 2026. Um, commission, can I have a motion, please?

[3:05] So, thank you in a second.

[3:10] Second, but I got a correction or something. OK, so we have a motion from Commissioner

[3:14] Douglas, a second from Commissioner Reard, uh, to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner

[3:19] Reard. Yes, on the, I have to find it here. Just a second.

[3:32] Now, on the minutes pertaining to the second reading of Ordinance 2026, uh, concerning

[3:40] the annual short-term rental permit, I'm quite certain that I was not the one who

[3:46] seconded the motion to table, and I don't remember who was, but I know I wasn't that

[3:51] person, so it was could have been me Schrader Young, I believe.

[3:59] I'll get that corrected. Thank you. We'll check the video and see for sure.

[4:06] Is there any other discussion, commissioners on the consent agenda? Well, this is

[4:11] Carolyn. Um, yes, as long as it came up that there was a correction and we're gonna

[4:17] look at it by checking the video, it would be so great if we could improve the capacity

[4:25] of the recordings to be played on a mobile device because right now, it's very

[4:33] difficult to watch a replay of a city commission meeting on a phone. It's OK on a

[4:39] computer, not so good on a phone, and lots of people use their phones as

[4:47] a computer. And when I've brought this up before, I've kind of been dismissed about

[4:53] it. So if we could continue to work on upgrading the performance of the recording.

[5:01] So we could check for, so we can watch, rewatch ourselves on our phones. It would

[5:06] be great. Thank you. Thanks, Carolyn. Any other commission discussion on the consent

[5:10] agenda?

[5:13] All right. Any public comment on the consent agenda.

[5:18] The online. OK. All righty then, we'll move forward with the vote on that. Commissioner

[5:23] Pardini for Schrader Young for, uh, for Douglas for Endeavor for that motion carries.

[5:30] Thank you. This brings us to agenda item 6, which is our city manager comments. We

[5:36] have our, uh, Chief City Manager, Simpson. Take it away, please. Thank you. So, uh,

[5:43] one question that came up last time in regards to the golf course and the legal expenses.

[5:47] Uh, I was curious how much money was, was spent to date on that. It's $2,515.82 and

[5:55] they're, they're still actively working on that. Um, the old nine was closed on September

[6:01] 30th. The rest of the golf course is still open, and it will, Typically close around

[6:06] mid-November with the the change in the weather. Um, the fire department, I believe

[6:12] last week attended a drone symposium at SKC, and they got caught up on some public

[6:19] safety advantages of drones and, and fires and search and rescue and some new SCC

[6:23] regulations that came out. Fire engine 2312 is still in for repairs. It's expected

[6:30] to be due back in November, uh, when they get that done. Also for the fire department,

[6:36] uh, the tribes, CSKT issued micro grants to all the fire departments across the reservation.

[6:42] Our fire departments received 2500. It's gonna go for some, uh, PPE, some personal

[6:48] protective gear for some of the firefighters. And they also received a $20,000 grant

[6:54] from Town Pump for new turnout gear. Another one for them as well. Today, Westland

[7:00] Seed began their, uh, weed spraying fall cycle, and so that, that'll go, uh, through

[7:07] the end of the month, but today was the first day on that. Our new city website is

[7:12] expected to go live at the end of the month. Uh, it's mostly new updates, some ADA

[7:17] stuff on there. I'll see if I can get the question answered about the mobile devices

[7:21] for recordings. And then I wanted to mention that in the supplement pages of tonight's

[7:27] agenda, there was some uh FAQs, some frequently asked questions on the closure of

[7:32] SID 42. Hopefully that will provide some, some feedback and some good answers uh

[7:37] for some of the common questions that were asked. But we also set up an email that

[7:42] goes straight to our financial officer in regards to SID 42. So if anybody has questions

[7:48] specifically about that, it's SID42@cityofPulsa.com. So that should help funnel that

[7:54] info straight to our financial officer. That's all I have. Excellent. Thank you,

[7:58] Chief Simpson, and thanks so much for setting up that SID 42 fact in the email. I

[8:02] think that's really important, and I appreciate the work you guys put into that,

[8:05] you and Jody. Thank you. Commissioners. Any questions for that? This is Carolyn.

[8:09] Could you just real briefly talk about what SID 42 is? So it's the, the, the topic

[8:15] is the closure of Special Improvement District Number 42, which was the streetscape,

[8:20] and there's funds still in that, um. Money is still in that fund and that's being

[8:26] closed and so we're, we're refunding it. The city's refunding it and some folks have

[8:30] questions about that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner, is there any other questions

[8:35] on the city manager comments? I have a question on an unrelated, but something that's

[8:40] coming up next meeting. I've had a constituent inquiry on the status of the development,

[8:48] uh, between 35 Highway and Mission Bay off Hoc Drive there. I think it got started

[8:55] and then it kind of stalled and The citizens who live there asking about updates

[9:01] and also an update on the um Storage facility. That is off

[9:09] 35 that also abuts the golf course and Yellowstone Court. I, so I'm,

[9:17] I, I don't need any answers at this point, but between now and next meeting, we might

[9:22] want to be prepared to answer citizen. Questions about it. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner.

[9:30] Commissioner, is there any further questions for our Chief Manager? This is Carolyn

[9:34] again. Um, I also have neighbors who are really wondering about that sidewalk issue,

[9:40] George, up on 15th, and it's been since Ed was here that I've been asking questions

[9:47] about it, and I've sent him pictures several times, um, and They're kind of just

[9:53] like they can't believe that brush pile has been sitting there for 2 years. So I,

[9:59] I called, I've been calling the city. Don't, don't get much of a response. So it

[10:05] would be great to have an answer. They might be wrong.

[10:11] All right, thank you, Carolyn. Commissioner, is there any further questions for Mr.

[10:14] Simpson? All righty. Thank you for your report. I appreciate it, Chief. This brings

[10:21] us to new business. Agenda item 7 is the Southern Slope Construction. And again,

[10:27] we have Community Development Director Robert Eddington and City Attorney Dave Mickey.

[10:33] Good evening again, uh, commission, fellow staff, members of the public. Uh, thank

[10:38] you for being here tonight. Um, I recently gave a Earlier, uh, a staff report. So

[10:45] here, um, presentation. So just real quick for the record, um, I'll reiterate.

[10:55] So OTB Development, represented by Tracy Yost and Park Shera, is proposing Southern

[11:03] Slopes Subdivision, a major subdivision creating 90 residential lots in 3 phases

[11:10] within the low-density residential zoning District or LRZD of the city of Polson.

[11:17] Joe, Joe Nelson of Geo Planned is acting as the applicant's agent. The proposal includes

[11:25] extension of municipal water and sewer, public streets, pedestrian routes, drainage

[11:30] facilities, public, and a public park to be dedicated to the city and maintained

[11:35] by the landowners association. Um, and your preliminary plat, or you'll also see

[11:40] a legal description for the property. There's also a proposed phasing plan, so as

[11:46] part of phase subdivisions under state law, um, the, the phases could be completed

[11:53] up to a maximum of 20 years. The first phase is proposed with 41 lots to be completed

[12:01] within 2 years. Phase two is 34 lots within 5 years, and phase three is 15 lots to

[12:08] be completed within 7 years. The subject property was Annexed in

[12:16] February of 2006, you'll see an application timeline, a discussion of expedited review.

[12:23] The applicant has requested expedited review pursuant to Montana Code annotated

[12:29] 763-623. Um, this is a new procedure that was originally

[12:37] adopted in, uh, from the legislature in 2023 and I believe, um, amended slightly

[12:44] in 2025. In either case, the city of Folsom adopted it in, uh, 2025. The proposal

[12:52] was reviewed for zoning informants. Um, there you'll see in the staff report, uh,

[12:59] there is an engineered memorandum, um, sealed or stamped by a professional engineer

[13:07] addressing the hillside development or slopes in particular that exceed 8%. There's

[13:14] also discovered or discussion of block coverage, runoff, slope stability, and erosion.

[13:20] There's a discussion of blocks and streets. Um Uh,

[13:27] also included in, um, the application package is, um, a

[13:35] part plan. There's a list of the adjacent property owners, including a certified

[13:42] list of owners within 150 ft. Those property owners, adjacent owners were notified

[13:49] via certified mailing. The item was listed uh twice in the paper pursuant

[13:56] to um public hearing, uh, state law. There was one,

[14:04] written comment that was received after, um, the staff report was published and you'll

[14:11] see that, um, I believe, in front of you there. Also included in the application

[14:18] is entity comments, um, title report, preliminary covenants, bylaws of the

[14:25] landowners association, construction plan for the roads, design reports for drainage

[14:32] and stormwater, a water main extension, sewer main extension. You'll see a geotechnical

[14:38] report, a traffic impact study, and also a discussion of floodplain and irrigation

[14:45] rights. And so that concludes the staff presentation. Excellent. Thank you, Rob.

[14:50] Commissioners, do you have any questions? Madam Mayor, because Eddington, go ahead,

[14:55] Dave, because we ran over on time on the public hearing, I was, I was hoping in conformity

[14:59] with the public hearing that you could open for public comment before you open your

[15:04] discussion so that it would conform with. What procedure me. I'm so glad you're here.

[15:09] Dave's our Robert Spills expert. Can, can, so you would want public comment now before

[15:16] we commented on Rob's, before we open up for a commission discussion to allow people

[15:22] to present their public comments so that you can receive it, have your discussion,

[15:26] and open up again for public comment after you've had your discussion. Um, before

[15:30] you bring it up again, so it'll be two public comment periods, but at least, good

[15:35] idea. Great idea. So real quick, public comment is just that it's public comment.

[15:39] We have a 3 minute clock. We just need your name. It's not a question and answer

[15:44] discussion period. I just want everybody to be clear about that, OK? Do we make a

[15:47] motion first, or no, not, not yet. OK, cool. Thanks, Jen. I appreciate that. I just

[15:52] wanna make sure, right. All right. So since Dave is our expert, definitely go with

[15:56] that. If there's any public comment tonight, please come up to the podium. Now's

[16:00] your chance. OK then, thank you. State your name and your concern, please. I will.

[16:06] My name is Dale Engstrom, and I live at the, the top of the hill. Um, there are actually

[16:11] 3 developments. The original one was the top of the hill with, um, Mission View Drive.

[16:17] The second, uh, development was the Jensen development, and it's filling in really

[16:21] rapidly, and this is the 3rd development and, and it has gone through several sets

[16:27] of hands to get where it is. I'm sorry you took that picture off of there, um, so

[16:33] let me first address the fact that this is supposed to be a low density development

[16:37] and if you.

[16:40] If you look at this triangular piece right here, That was 2 lots in the original

[16:46] development, OK? And if you look at the rest of the lots, especially the ones. Right

[16:52] in there Some of those lots are 0.17 acres, 0.19 acres, they're really

[17:00] tiny. And if we're talking about low density, uh, subdivision, that's, that's not

[17:06] it. Um, the rest of the subdivisions between the Jensen and the one at the top are

[17:11] much, much larger lots and much, much more room between houses. And this is gonna

[17:15] be more like city lots, they're gonna be very close together, cheek on jowl. Part

[17:21] two. The other thing I was thinking about was that that Jensen development has a

[17:28] pump station at its lowest point. Uh, right there. And it has

[17:36] that pump station for the sewer to pump the sewer over the hill and onto the other

[17:40] side to get it out of there. I don't see any. Uh, accommodation for getting the sewer

[17:46] from the bottom of the hill, and we're now at the bottom of the hill, all the way

[17:49] over the top of the hill to the back over to Polton. But, you know, it's, it doesn't

[17:55] mean it's not there, I just didn't see it. But it's a big job, and, and it seems

[17:58] like a silly thing to try to do. The reason I was talking about density, partly is

[18:03] because we sit right where the road splits when it comes off of uh Mission View Drive.

[18:09] And, and where that road splits, we watch the traffic. And of course, with the new

[18:12] Jensen division, subdivision. Improvements, all the new houses that are going up,

[18:17] we're seeing a lot more traffic. And, and we have a fear that when they start developing

[18:22] that thing, and they're talking about 90 more houses, that we're talking about a

[18:27] whole lot more traffic going on the paved road that goes past our house, which was

[18:31] something that I appreciate Lisa talking about. So one of the things we'd like to

[18:36] see is some kind of a proposal guarantee, uh, something that says that they're going

[18:42] to pave the road that goes out to. Mission view rather than sending those people

[18:48] up through I mean

[18:52] Not sending them up through Mission View but going out the other way and and uh and

[18:57] dropping the amount of traffic that would come through our our place, OK? And then

[19:01] the other thing I'd like to suggest is. I'm, I, I did my PhD work in

[19:08] hydrogeology. And I can tell you that when we first um noticed in 2018,

[19:16] 2019, on to about 2025, 2026, every Fourth of July, the tanks at the top of the hill

[19:22] ran out of water, the big old million gallon tanks. And the reason was, is because

[19:27] they weren't Sending the water up there as they should have been. And also, but more

[19:33] importantly, the water availability in Polson is a real tricky situation, as you

[19:38] were talking about the sanding wells and so forth. So the idea that we're gonna continue

[19:44] to approve more houses as quickly as we are, 90 more houses, and each one of them's

[19:50] gonna need water, and each one of them is gonna be contributing to sewer, it's, it's,

[19:55] it can be a problem, and I can see a problem coming because. The approval of housing

[20:01] and the uh and the arrival of enough water to make that happen may not be the same

[20:07] thing. Thank you very much. Thanks for your patience. Thanks for your comment. I

[20:12] like that. Anybody else? I'll go next. Can you put the map up please again? Arlene

[20:20] Atkins. I, I was lucky my husband and I got a certified letter, so that tells you

[20:25] how close we are. So we are, OK, good. I'm really short. So you see where the road

[20:32] comes out on the skyline. We're just above that, or, or actually an easier way, you

[20:39] know, the whiteboard fence Brad Barengo has. We're on the corner of the whiteboard

[20:45] fence, so you know where everybody crashes through the fence. I know that that's

[20:50] where we live. So that thank you first everybody um.

[20:59] Some of the crashes we get, we've been getting at least one a year, a lot of times

[21:05] twice a year, um. And of course we don't want anybody hurt. Some of the vehicles

[21:11] come at least 100 ft past our fence. And that's after hitting a board fence with

[21:18] posts. So, I, I worry about the, the houses that are right on the

[21:25] skyline. That fence gets crashed through too. It's barbed wire, there's no animals

[21:32] in there, so nobody fixes that. This, that, that corner there.

[21:38] Where all wait, am I backwards? You're right, that's OK, where all the um houses

[21:45] are gonna be on that corner. There there's gonna be cars in their house unless there's

[21:52] guardrail or a berm or something anyway, so that I wanted to address that um.

[22:00] Skyline might be the best road in Lake County. I think we probably all agree. Guess

[22:06] what everybody does? They drive faster. I, I kind of don't blame him, and especially

[22:12] if you've got a, a really nice old car, we get to watch. Like I'll, I'll tell him,

[22:18] look, it's a '69 whatever, you know, going up the road. More traffic, they're gonna

[22:25] go, that's more, more accidents. I don't want anybody to get hurt. The the other

[22:31] thing they mentioned about the homeowners association of the other developments that

[22:36] were prior, I know I'm almost out. Who's gonna enforce the homeowner rules, so that

[22:43] all of our our property values stay good. We want theirs, the new people too, cause

[22:50] we're new. We built that house. The biggest thing, water, our water

[22:57] pressure right now. Like if he's getting a shower, I can't run anything else.

[23:06] I can't get a shower when he's getting a shower. I mean, I don't wanna get in the

[23:10] same shower always with my husband. I love him, but you can't run the washer and

[23:18] get a shower. You can't have the dishwasher run and get a shower. I got 3 seconds.

[23:23] So the original development that we were aware of was less than 50 houses. How did

[23:29] it go from 50 to 90? We know there needs to be more homes. We know that, especially

[23:35] in Folsom. So that's my speed up. Thank you. I use all my time. You did great. I

[23:40] appreciate your comments, Miss Atkins. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, what's up? Yeah.

[23:48] I try to tell her price. I live on, uh, Mission View Drive, and I appreciate

[23:55] Lisa and the other comments about, you know, some reservations as far as the, uh,

[24:01] capacity and like Dale mentioned, who's my neighbor, uh, we have almost

[24:09] every summer. A water pressure issue. And as Dale indicated, you know, you're just

[24:16] gonna, I don't see how in the world you're gonna get sufficient volume to handle

[24:21] this development. All right? And then, much less on the sewer side. One point I have

[24:28] is, is there going to be a SID, you know, a, a special improvement district,

[24:36] uh, uh, bond on that property, or is it gonna encompass where we live as well? So,

[24:44] is there any discussion about that?

[24:48] No, OK, well, that's a point that, you know, obviously would, would need to be addressed.

[24:55] Um Has the tribe approved this? The tribe, yeah, yeah.

[25:03] It's not really a question to answer type situation in public health, but we can

[25:07] look into that curious on that. And the, and the traffic, uh, there is like Dale

[25:12] indicated, is just crazy. Sometimes we have to wait 5 to 10 minutes, especially during

[25:19] the summertime, to leave, you know, Mission View Drive to get on Skyline. So is there

[25:24] gonna be, you know, the traffic mitigation quote report. Uh, you know, what does

[25:30] that indicate? I didn't, I didn't know what was said or what's contained in that

[25:34] to address that issue. But, you know, is somebody gonna widen the road a little bit,

[25:39] uh, you know, the, the roads here. Coming out, you know, we need to have at least

[25:47] Maybe another one around here somewhere, I don't know, but there's gotta be some

[25:50] other, you know, outlets in order to control and mitigate, you know, the traffic

[25:56] to some degree. I would think that's gotta be uh uh also a priority on it. So I'm

[26:02] up for development, I'm fine with that, but you know, there's some serious concerns,

[26:07] especially the SID, because I don't wanna be paying for it. You know, um, that's

[26:13] one of the things. Multi-family, it says that it's gonna have multi-family. How many?

[26:19] How tall? You know, I don't know whether that's in the, in the report or not. Um,

[26:26] let's see. Oh, low income. I mean, I was involved in, in building something recently

[26:32] too. I mean, you're, you're 220 $275 a square foot right now, right? So how's that

[26:40] going to be low income? You know, on, on, uh, I mean, the places, are they're gonna

[26:45] be 1000 ft, you know, square feet houses? I don't think so. The lots up there are

[26:50] going for anywhere between, I mean, a little one just sold recently, and I think

[26:54] it was 145. You know, much less a larger one. So now you're gonna increase who's

[27:00] gonna buy the larger lots, and then they're sure not gonna build a 1000 square foot

[27:05] home. So the, the feasibility of, you know, affordability is what? I think it's a

[27:12] limited amount of time. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Thank you, Mr. Price.

[27:17] Who's next?

[27:21] Mhm. This is when it would be good to have the microphone just saying that's not

[27:26] mine. Hi, I'm Nancy Artube. I'm really happy I can be here and you'll listen to me.

[27:34] Um, I think Burt and, you know, the others talked about the water pressure, so I'm

[27:40] not gonna keep going on that, but my greatest concern. Is the traffic.

[27:48] And we have come to the city several times, and whoever planned Skyline Drive

[27:55] years back, never took into consideration to look ahead at the amount of traffic

[28:02] that would come through and where my driveway sits. I can't tell you how many times

[28:09] we, cause it's blindsided, like, you know, people can't see it, and when we pull

[28:15] out, I can't tell you how many times my husband or I or my family, my grandkids have

[28:22] almost got sideswiped. So my real concern is when I hear 80 houses.

[28:30] I think at least 80 more to 160 cars going past my house and the danger

[28:38] that's gonna be on us. I mean, I'm not kidding, we sit at the window and watch each

[28:44] other pull out just to make sure we get out there. Not that we can do anything about

[28:48] it, you know, but we have to sit there and we sit and watch cause we're hoping they're

[28:53] gonna pull out of that driveway, OK. And we know we can't, there's not much we can

[28:58] do. We've done everything we can, I think the city has, but if you're putting all

[29:02] that traffic, please look out for the people that are there and try to take that

[29:07] into consideration. I heard the gentleman say this started back in 2005 or 2006.

[29:14] I was, that's 20 years ago. OK. 20 years ago, we didn't expect. And be like this,

[29:20] we didn't expect the traffic. I've been in there for 8 years, and the traffic on

[29:25] Skyline in the morning and at the evening especially, it's crazy going up and down

[29:31] that road, you know. So I'm just asking you to please be considerate of all the facts.

[29:38] Sometimes growing bigger isn't necessarily better, OK? Thank you. Thanks for your

[29:45] coming through.

[29:48] Chuck Nancy, who's up? OK.

[29:54] talk.

[30:00] My name is Gail Barrett. I live at Mission View Drive. And I want to reiterate, she

[30:05] was just talking about the traffic. I had a guy passed me the other day going down

[30:10] skyline. He was doing over 60. Because he had the little sign that starts flashing,

[30:14] said 60. He was in a hurry to get to Woody's, or I'm sorry, Western Building. That's

[30:19] how long I've been here. As far as water pressure goes, First house I built a house

[30:25] on Skyline up on Mission View, not the one I live in now, but I built one other one.

[30:29] I had to put a pressure tank in, cause there was no water pressure at all. You build

[30:34] more houses, you're gonna have to have a big water pressure problem. They need to

[30:38] do something about that. As far as the sewer goes, I, I, I'm sure they're gonna have

[30:44] to figure that one out. Sewer prices went up quite a bit a few years ago when they

[30:47] had to redo the whole system out here. We've been paying for that ever since. That

[30:52] was because of the commission here, over 20 years never did anything. Finally, they

[30:55] did, and now we pay for it. They need to start fixing some of the infrastructure

[31:01] in the city. City streets suck. I understand why, but they need to start fixing some

[31:07] of these things. As far as Skyline goes, it's starting to be a nightmare. I watch

[31:12] it every day. If you want, I count the cars. I did one day just for an hour, just

[31:17] to see how many cars went by. It was 7 a minute. That's what we got now. You start

[31:23] building those houses, and you're gonna have another, like she said, 80 to 160 cars.

[31:29] That's a lot. And that's a lot of people. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. OK

[31:38] Yeah, go ahead.

[31:44] Just to follow up, follow up on Joe Archer, 1420 Skyline Drive. Just to follow up

[31:50] on, on the water and the traffic. It, it's true. The, the water pressure some mornings

[31:55] is ridiculous. And it hasn't been but a couple of years back, we were on restrictions

[31:59] for water to with what we have now. So let's put in another 100 homes and see what's

[32:04] gonna happen with it. And secondly, with the traffic, you let the cat out the bag,

[32:08] George. George has the numbers on the traffic, he shared with me. He's got that machine

[32:13] out there, it's on Skyline right now. And we can do an easy survey on the difference

[32:17] in that traffic from 2020 to 2026 and see how it's grown already without this development.

[32:25] Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

[32:31] Anybody else? Come on up. Thanks. Sure girls are nice.

[32:37] I'm extra short.

[32:41] My name is Missy Leahu. I live on 1400 Skyline with my husband. As it is, we already

[32:47] can't even use our driveway. We can come in it as long as nobody's on our tail too

[32:51] hot, but we can't use it to leave because we're gonna get hit and our neighbors are

[32:57] the same way. So we have to use a wraparound road that goes all the way back out

[33:01] to the stop sign in order to be able to get good enough view to be able to pull out

[33:05] safely. OK, that's already a problem as it is. We're swimming in the summer, right?

[33:11] Winter, it's real slick hill and everything. Um, as it is, My husband's almost been

[33:18] ran over in our own driveway with our dogs. I've almost been ran over in our own

[33:22] driveway because people like to try to use it to skip through to go around. Even

[33:27] though we have signs posted on both ends that it's a private driveway, this is already

[33:31] an issue. So when you're talking about adding 90 more units with Who knows how many

[33:37] more drivers on there? It's gonna become a really big issue. I myself have ran out

[33:42] the door with 911 on the phone because I saw vehicles flip on the road trying to

[33:47] not hit deer, because we have herds of deer and animal populations that that are

[33:52] there because they're being pushed out. There's nowhere else for them to go. So you

[33:57] take all of those things and you're just gonna compound the problem and coming up

[34:02] with the numbers of traffic after the fact, it's too late. It's too late. You can't

[34:07] go back and fix it once it's done, and it's already an issue. So for me, I, I'd like

[34:13] to know how you're gonna expand the roads. I don't want to read something I can't

[34:17] understand. I want you to explain it to me like a 5th grader with crayons. I want

[34:21] to know exactly how you're gonna do our roads, what you're gonna do to help that,

[34:26] and for the private areas that are already private drives, what are you gonna do

[34:30] to reinforce that to make sure more traffic isn't going through there and people

[34:34] aren't getting hit? That's what I'd like to know. Thank you, ma'am.

[34:48] Agreement. Um, Taylor Lipscomb, I live at 129 Skyview, so it's the last house on

[34:56] that, uh, the paved road before the proposed development, uh, and I have two main,

[35:02] uh, concerns. The first is, um, the developer spoke to the need for a bus route potentially,

[35:10] so the transportation, um, for the school, but have we consulted with the school

[35:14] district regarding. The potential for the influx of 90 homes' worth of new students,

[35:20] um, and if we have capacity to accept that. Um, and then the other concern is if,

[35:26] uh, CSKT has been, um, consulted on both the archaeological and cultural heritage

[35:33] of the site, as well as, uh, natural resource impacts, um, and, uh, it being a potential

[35:41] wildlife corridor. I can't hear you. What was the last thing you speak of? Yeah,

[35:45] potential wildlife wildlife, yeah, yeah. Did you guys hear me? Yeah, got you. Thanks.

[35:52] Thank you so much.

[35:55] What's up? Good idea. That'd be very hard. I already got. Do you have any other public

[36:02] comment? At this time, come on, somebody, sure, sure, and, and

[36:10] there'll be another chance, right? So we're gonna go through and talk about it and

[36:17] you guys will have another chance if you have different ideas. OK, McGail Barrett

[36:22] again, Mission View Drive. One of the other comments I want to make is on Skyline

[36:26] Drive and 93. Those are the only two routes to get into Polson from the south. That's

[36:34] it.

[36:36] It's the only way you can get in Pulsa. That's why it's got so much traffic. Somebody

[36:41] needs to think of another way in. So, just thought I'd bring that up. Thank you,

[36:47] sir.

[36:50] Um, Chief Simpson, is there any comment online? No, ma'am.

[36:56] Anybody else in the room before we move on with our discussion? Just gonna add my

[37:02] name's Bill Rich. I live, I live up on Skyview Lane. The one thing I do talking about

[37:07] the traffic when you come off of Skyline Drive on the Mission Spur or Mission. You

[37:13] get those curves, more traffic, somebody's gonna go faster. More accidents. When

[37:20] you get down in my area, which I live right across the street from the tower water

[37:23] towers, that curved. I've already seen burnout marks on the, on the pavement there.

[37:32] Are the roads gonna get wider? And with more traffic, that means more traffic come

[37:37] both that route and then coming in the other side of Skyview Lane. So it's again,

[37:44] it's a traffic concern. Also reiterate just like everybody else's water. Those 2

[37:50] towers are not gonna be able to accommodate those 90 houses.

[37:56] So, you know, the question is, is Obviously there's gonna have to be something had

[38:01] taken place to accommodate that. Who, who pays that bill? Do we or the developer?

[38:09] Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else right now?

[38:17] I can't help it. I've got another shot at it, Dale.

[38:23] Dale Ekstrom, um, I just wanna reiterate because I don't know if I made it clearly

[38:29] enough that, um, this is supposed. To be a low density housing area with large lots

[38:35] and houses with room to, to grow. And it's not designed that way on that plat. If

[38:41] that's the plat that they're gonna go with, it's in 90, 90 homes in that little bitty

[38:46] 50 acres. Um, it's way overdone. And I, I don't know if you guys have the. Power

[38:53] to say no, this is, this is not drawn correctly, that this is a low density area,

[38:58] it should have larger lots and, and not as dense housing as what you're proposing

[39:04] and, and try to push this in the direction of more reasonable, um, and, and so that

[39:11] it matches the other developments in the area and, and it isn't this sudden city

[39:15] that where there where there was not one before. So I'm. Hoping you will push this

[39:21] idea of low density. Um, development rather than these little 0.17 acre lots that

[39:28] are on this map. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. One more time before

[39:35] we move on a little bit. Anybody else?

[39:40] OK. Then Rob or Dave, I think we'll take um commission questions on the agenda item,

[39:46] OK? All right, commissioners, what do we got? Well, first of all, this is Carolyn.

[39:53] You guys are pretty close on the matching shirts, but I really think that we need

[39:58] to work a little bit harder in the fashion, and you know I'm going to talk about

[40:02] that, right? I have a couple of questions if I may, please. The first one is about

[40:08] the expedited review because I think that is something that we struggle with as a

[40:13] commission. And I think it's something that's difficult to explain to the

[40:21] public when people ask me questions. Sometimes I, I have some confusions about it.

[40:26] And if I'm, and I'd love to hear what you, um, Mr. Nelson, is that right? Um, you

[40:34] brought it up several times in. Your presentation at the public meeting. So if you

[40:39] have something to help us understand better, I'd be happy to hear from you now or

[40:45] in another place. But as I understand expedited review, the, uh, we, the city of

[40:53] Folsom has adopted this policy, and we really didn't have Much choice about it.

[41:01] The state legislature has changed the subdivision review laws, and a municipality

[41:08] has to conform with state law. Am, am I in the ballpark on being correct on that?

[41:15] You are correct. So expedited review is relatively new creature. It was enacted in.

[41:20] 2021, amended in 2023 and 2025, and like you said too, with that amendment, it was

[41:27] required by the cities to adopt it uh regardless of their desire to opt in or opt

[41:32] out, um, and that, that is the truth of the matter. It is a relatively new form of

[41:37] subdivision. And Mr. Nelson, would you agree with that? Like we're kind of, so we're

[41:43] kind of speaking the same language is because I think that's a really important thing

[41:47] to have happen right now. So we don't, as I understand, as a commission, we

[41:55] can listen to a lot of public comment concerns. But we have very little

[42:03] power to deny. At least the beginning of the beginning approval of this

[42:11] subdivision because the state legislature has passed this expedited review is

[42:18] I kind of correct there? You are correct. My hands are tied. The preliminary development

[42:24] complies with the expedited review requirements even if you haven't updated the pulse

[42:29] development code. If we request expedited review and it qualifies, that means it

[42:35] goes through as an expedited review subdivision. So one of the places. Is that I

[42:40] see that we still have a little bit of power is somewhere in our code it talks about

[42:47] health, safety, and welfare of our community and so um I would say

[42:54] that in order for us not to approve this. We have to have a very strong case that

[43:02] the health, safety, and, and some things have been brought up, but I don't think

[43:07] we have the kind of case to not approve the preliminary appro approval or I think

[43:14] I used to approve twice there, um, but, but I think we're in a sticky place as a

[43:19] commission right now because of expedited review. It's a deal where elections have

[43:25] consequences. Yeah, thank you, Carolyn. Good points. Um, commissioner, is there any

[43:31] other questions? I have Lisa go. Commissioner, first of all, there, there are some

[43:38] questions about tribal review. Has there been tribal review of these plans and is

[43:43] it required? Um, there's as part of the entity comment, the subdivider requests a

[43:49] list of entities who to request comment from, and as part of that, it's spelled out

[43:54] in our subdivision review. There's a section which requires a review from a cultural

[44:02] historical, forgive me, I don't remember the exact title of that division of CSKT.

[44:07] Uh, there was, they, uh, as part of that you request comment, they have 30 days to

[44:14] reply. If there's a health safety comment or some something in there that's

[44:21] significant, we can request a second time, um, CSKT. Um, preservation did provide

[44:29] comment, um, that there was, um, I don't have it in front of me exactly, but they

[44:35] were, additional comment was gonna be forthcoming, um, but as of this date, we have

[44:40] not received any of that additional comment, um, at, at this point in time.

[44:48] And if it's received at a later point, I mean, walk me through the, um, their

[44:58] It gets a little bit uh tricky um as to imposing conditions of approval.

[45:06] um uh I have seen in my time with the county a condition where there could

[45:13] be potential concern, but there was nothing apparent. Um, there was a condition that

[45:21] said, you know, if during any time during. Um, the construction process, you know,

[45:28] um, historical artifacts or any of that encountered that they should immediately

[45:34] contact the CSKT or State of Montana if it's off the reservation, um, as part of

[45:41] that development. It, it was less of, um, No, your development is denied and more

[45:49] of, you know, if you encounter any sort of a conditional, we don't know, we aren't

[45:54] aware of anything, but if you uncover anything, then notify us and it may have an

[45:58] impact at that point. That's correct.

[46:03] Um, the water pressure concerns me, and I've heard those complaints from people in

[46:08] that neighborhood before. And I Don't Really even

[46:16] know where to begin with that. I mean, is, is that something that the engineers are

[46:21] going to be looking at on the capacity issue? Or

[46:28] What do we have a plan to, I mean, if, if, if we're already having water pressure

[46:35] problems, it sounds to me like we have a capacity issue. Um, uh, that will be part

[46:42] of the water modeling and review. I know historically, um, There's been some issues,

[46:49] significant, um, water pressure issues. One of those had to do with the faulty valve.

[46:55] It, it took them a number of days. I believe they were out of water. I was, I was

[47:00] just aware of it. Remember that? So, um, and I'm sure, uh, the residents could have

[47:08] more. It was a few days. Yeah. Of no water. Yeah. And that had to do with, Not it

[47:14] didn't have anything to do with not enough water. It had to do with a valve that

[47:18] was misdiagnosing and so the water was looping instead of providing pressure. So

[47:24] it was not a capacity issue. It was, uh, infrastructure. When does the engineering

[47:31] review occur? Um, the engineering review occurs, um, after. Preliminary plat approval

[47:39] and prior to any construction of the infrastructure. So before a sewer main is placed

[47:44] in the, in the ground or a water main, they'll need to obtain all necessary approvals

[47:51] from DEQ and from the city of Polsa. And our, our city engineers aware of

[47:58] the Problems we're already having with water in that area? Yes. OK. Mhm

[48:06] This is Carolyn. Can, can I ask like a hypothetical? Um, so we're kind of on the

[48:13] hook to approve this. We, we have a recommendation from you. Um, Mr. Nelson has done

[48:20] his due diligence. It, it looks like to me and Jack to get this preliminary, um,

[48:28] Approval done. But what happens they now they can take the

[48:35] next step and start looking at things like what really is gonna be the traffic? Is

[48:41] there enough water? Are we gonna be able to pump the sewer up over the hill? Um,

[48:47] what happens if One of those, if there's a failure in one of those places, then do

[48:55] we deny it or does it continue to go ahead with um imminent failure? I mean,

[49:03] how, what is the procedure?

[49:07] Um, I think the first step is to receive engineering approval as well as DEQ approval.

[49:14] Then following is the construction of the infrastructure, and then prior to final

[49:19] plat, this application will come back before the commission for final plat approval

[49:25] with um a demonstrate a list demonstrating that um they've dotted all the I's, crossed

[49:33] all the T's, demonstrated that they've just trafficked, um, constructed the roads,

[49:39] various infrastructure, water, sewer, etc. But, but, and I have no doubt that um

[49:46] that South Shore, South. What's the name? Southern Slope. That's a great name.

[49:54] I've spent a lot of time in up there. My personally I've spent a lot of time up there,

[50:00] um.

[50:02] What if all of a sudden there isn't any water, then is the city liable? Do we carry

[50:08] a liability because in the beginning, we said, OK, go ahead with this, and now I

[50:15] look at, you know, like you hear the stories about subdivisions in other places getting

[50:20] started and then there aren't, there's not enough water or Whatever, can, can they

[50:27] come back and say, well, you approved it. You should have known that, that this was

[50:33] gonna happen. We need to, and justifiably, you've invested your time and your money

[50:39] to make this go forward. So how does that balance play out? Yeah, my first step would

[50:45] be to consult the city attorney.

[50:50] Generally all those capacity layers have time frames. Same with the with the um preliminary

[50:56] prior right. So this is a phase aspect of it, but to get to that final and and into

[51:00] that phase you can have to come back to, you know, to get approval. So he has to

[51:04] meet those capacities, um, otherwise usually they have their clawback procedures

[51:08] they fail to meet it. It's not hanging out there for 10 years. So that way those

[51:14] he can't the the the subdivider can't keep those limits open forever and there's

[51:19] there's, you know, plenty of competition, so it's in his best interest to comply

[51:22] as soon as possible and and conform but if he can't, then we can come back to the

[51:27] subdivision and say he didn't meet the subdivision. Regulations of expedite review.

[51:31] Right. Well, I haven't, this is still Carolyn. I've, I have no question that Southern

[51:37] Slope is gonna do their best to comply, but water is a finite issue, and if there's

[51:45] no water, and we've approved it. If we've said go ahead and

[51:53] then all of a sudden there's no water, are we, what's our responsibility? I don't

[51:59] wanna say liability, but what's our responsibility because I don't think there is

[52:03] enough water. I mean, I just flat out don't think there is.

[52:09] That that hypothetical I can't answer at this moment. Well, you can answer whether

[52:14] or not they, whether or not we would be responsible if, if something like that happened.

[52:20] Well, I mean, we have a capacity and aspect to it, right? And that those are those

[52:24] rights. If we have a shortage, then we have to sign off that we have a shortage,

[52:28] and if we have a shortage, we do emergency water. Um, restrictions and those may

[52:33] apply to developments and if they can comply with the emergency restrictions, uh,

[52:38] then they could build, but if that restricts the number of units, then that, that's

[52:42] a restriction, right? And if it's unforeseeable, it's, you know, that's the forced

[52:46] majeure clause, right? I don't, we could have a drought, you know, a 5 year drought.

[52:51] We don't know. I mean, the whole city could go under be, yeah, absolutely restrictions.

[52:57] Well, you can set a moratorium, but at the moment we don't have that, and that's

[53:01] all hypothetical, and that's the problem. And until it occurs we can't do it. It's

[53:06] kind of an unforeseen, um, aspect of it, right? OK, thanks, Dave. Thanks, I appreciate

[53:13] that. I just still have a few more um. No part of the plan is widening

[53:21] skyline, right? That's not something that's been discussed. Uh, no. Is there, if

[53:27] we approve this as written, there's no language in there about the option one for

[53:34] large subdivisions like we have in our code that if If upgrades are required to accommodate

[53:41] the additional traffic, then they have to pay their share of it. That is not included

[53:47] in your proposal at this time, right? Um, no. And if this is

[53:54] approved as is, then does that preclude that from happening in the future if there's

[54:00] a determination that improvements are needed to skyline. That

[54:08] would be a, that would be the result of the engineering review.

[54:15] So that's something that like like water and sewer infrastructure upgrades that's

[54:22] something that if it becomes apparent that there's a need for it under the code at

[54:28] a later date if that can be required at a later time that is correct.

[54:34] Laura, can I ask you a question? This now this talking to Dave and um Rob right now

[54:41] is not so much it's mostly just questioning them, but there'll still be discussion

[54:47] after the motion. So this is direct questioning for. Their expertise thank you. Yeah,

[54:54] and, and one item to clarify, so the traffic impact analysis discussed um some signage,

[54:59] so on and so forth, um, that's still subject to review from our city engineers. OK,

[55:05] so. There's probably going to be something required, but whether it's widening of

[55:11] skyline is probably not what the result is gonna be. That's, uh, according to the

[55:17] transportation engineer, um, his statement, his professional opinion is that that

[55:22] is not required, OK, um. And Mr. Engstrom asked about low density, and there's actually

[55:30] a definition of low density within our code, is that right? Um, there's the low density

[55:37] residential zoning district. And does it have minimum lot sizes? It does. And does.

[55:45] This subdivision, I mean, these lots are all within that minimum lot size, correct?

[55:51] OK, so it, it meets the definition of low resident, low density residential within

[55:58] our code. Yeah, it meets the requirements of low density

[56:03] and our code complies with state code on that, yeah, that would, that's subject to,

[56:09] uh, the growth policy, the adopted zoning regulation. Um, staff doesn't dispute that

[56:15] the watts are smaller, but it does meet the requirements of the, which is really

[56:19] what we have to look at is whether it complies with the definitions of our code,

[56:23] correct? And somebody said something about multi-family. I thought it was single

[56:29] family and duplex, but duplex is treated as single family under the statutes and

[56:34] under the code, correct? State law requires that, yes, and. So there's no other multi-family

[56:40] beyond the duplex, uh, to my knowledge, no, um, it would be prohibitive, and, and

[56:45] the low, low density residential district does not allow anything more than a duplex,

[56:51] correct, in any markets, OK, a duplex or you could also have a single family residence

[56:56] in an ADU, but in no circumstance would there be two dwelling units on a property.

[57:01] It's my understanding that is not proposed, but we would not be able to prohibit.

[57:06] Um, uh, to duplex or the ADU, but beyond that we can prohibit, right, OK, and

[57:14] that you mentioned the street proposal that it requires input from the city commission.

[57:20] Do you all have a recommendation as to what that street? proposal should be, uh,

[57:27] uh, could you please clarify? Well, he mentioned that in your report it says I think

[57:32] it's the phase requires commission decision. The phase timing requires commission.

[57:38] Decision and also how the street maintenance is going to be handled and it's, is

[57:44] it going to be that city is going to be responsible? Is it gonna be that we're taking

[57:49] dedication, but the homeowners association is gonna be responsible, or are you

[57:57] considering uh uh maintenance SID? Um, that's a good question. Part of that, I will

[58:03] defer to the city attorney. Originally we had um there had been discussions of the

[58:10] spur roads being privately owned and maintained and that the city would just maintain

[58:16] the, the, the ownership would be platted just the main thoroughfare and that it was

[58:21] the request of our public works director, um, so on and forth just based on staffing

[58:26] and being able to maintain um. There has been a proposal to amend our subvision language

[58:33] to allow for both private and public to address that um potential discrepancy in

[58:39] code, but, um, and so that was part of the original discussion application, so

[58:47] on to give that option to the commission, but, um, at this point in time, um, that.

[58:54] That, uh, amendment to the code is still outstanding and will be forthcoming at a

[58:59] future date, right? But, so my point is your report says requires commission decision

[59:07] on the street maintenance, and I guess I'm not understanding what the recommendation

[59:10] is, or is it something that can be decided at a later point, um, that is, um.

[59:20] That is something I would have to talk with Dave. I, I think the intent was to allow

[59:25] that flexibility so the spur roads with the cul-de-sac could be maintained by the

[59:32] homeowners association or at least that discussion, but as of where we're at today,

[59:37] um. They are proposed as plotted fee simple to the city to the city we don't

[59:45] have the, we don't have the. Bandwidth in our street department to actually maintain

[59:51] them, is that a fair statement? So if, um, so they're on their own one way or the

[59:57] other. Well, if that zoning regulation were to be amended prior to final latte,

[1:00:05] um, it may be a simple amendment coming back to the city commission, but I would,

[1:00:11] um. Part of the technicalities, I would need to defer that to Dave for further. And

[1:00:17] I guess my real question is, do we, I mean, An approval tonight,

[1:00:25] do we need to be doing something more than? On, on that issue because your report

[1:00:32] says requires commission decision or um I would suggest um looking at the commission

[1:00:40] uh recommended findings of fact. And conditions of approval, the, the commission,

[1:00:47] um, has the ability to modify those, make a statement, um, adopt those, adopt all,

[1:00:53] some, none, uh, you just need to have findings of fact on your decision, so.

[1:01:02] But does that need to be done tonight because how once we do preliminary plan

[1:01:09] basically we don't have the ability to make changes after the fact. So is that something

[1:01:16] that depends on later facts or is that something that has to be decided tonight?

[1:01:21] I'm not getting an answer to that. It can be both right aspects of it because right

[1:01:28] now we're still in that first preliminary engineering aspect, but we. Even gotten

[1:01:31] there. We're in preliminary but we don't have an SID. The expedia doesn't really

[1:01:36] the subdivision regulations don't necessarily require an SID for maintenance for,

[1:01:40] for, uh, these simple roads dedicated to the city because this was the expectation

[1:01:44] of the city maintain it. We don't really have that in the code. We do have some SID

[1:01:48] stuff in the code that may require it and it may be something that we need to bring

[1:01:52] in in front of the bring it up again to figure it out where it is after an engineering

[1:01:58] engineering traffic review aspect. Um, so it could be done tonight. Um, I can ask

[1:02:04] Joel what they want to do with their snow maintenance or if we have enough information

[1:02:08] to do it tonight, and, or we can do it at a at a later date as well. The, um, an

[1:02:14] SID is open at any time, OK, if we don't do the SID, if instead we do like they're

[1:02:21] doing with the park where it's publicly dedicated, but the homeowners association

[1:02:25] is handling the maintenance, yeah.

[1:02:31] What's our flexibility? What's our timeline on when that decision needs to be made?

[1:02:37] Who's handling your street? Have you determined that it's we propose to dedicate

[1:02:45] the streets to the public, the city of Folsom, and have the city take on maintenance,

[1:02:51] but we did include permission, uh, HOA documents. Where commission decides not decides

[1:02:58] to reject main street maintenance

[1:03:03] associated responsibility so there could be, so that's something that doesn't have

[1:03:07] to be decided. I mean, the reality is if we assume responsibility for maintenance

[1:03:13] we don't have the ability to provide it so it's a, it, it's a false commitment if

[1:03:19] you will. I mean, realistically, right.

[1:03:27] OK. Do we have to decide on the phasing timeline? Um, Uh, state law requires a,

[1:03:35] um, a public hearing if the phasing extends beyond.

[1:03:43] Um, 5 years. So, um, the commission could approve their proposed phasing plan.

[1:03:51] Um, I think what's important is the order of phasing and the fact that all the infrastructure

[1:03:57] is there and that if it, I would say in compliance with state law, so if it exceeded

[1:04:05] whatever. Timeline to require additional hearing, um, that it would comply with that,

[1:04:12] so.

[1:04:18] Did you? Mm mm. Sorry, any questions? Oh, Lisa, you did a great job. Yeah, yeah,

[1:04:25] thanks you guys. Thanks for answering our questions. Yes, thank you. Yep.

[1:04:31] No other questions for the staff commission.

[1:04:36] Yeah Then I would take a motion so we could have a discussion. Please, I move to

[1:04:43] approve the preliminary plot of Southern Slopes Subdivision, a 90 lot phase major

[1:04:48] subdivision subject to the findings of fact and conditions of approval contained

[1:04:52] in the staff report. Thank you, Commissioner Ruglas. Do we have a second? I second

[1:04:57] that. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Ruglas, a second from Commissioner

[1:05:01] Schrader Young. Commission discussion.

[1:05:06] Carolyn, I have a couple of questions, and the first one should be easy. What ward

[1:05:11] will this be?

[1:05:14] That's a really good question.

[1:05:19] 3. I'm, I'm getting the, I'm getting the signal that it's 3. I think the city clerk,

[1:05:25] you all are, yeah, Corey, yeah, yeah, you know, I was getting from, from the city

[1:05:29] clerk that it would be 3,

[1:05:34] So, so my, uh, thank you, that's my simple question. It's already in the city, so

[1:05:40] whatever it is, right, um, I, I think though that we'll be looking at how I'm doing

[1:05:46] some adjustments over time, maybe not right now, but as subdivisions come in, we'll

[1:05:51] be looking at population adjustments, but that's not what my question was, my, um.

[1:05:57] Second, I don't know if it's a question or an observation or just one more chance

[1:06:03] to plug complete streets, but the idea of pedestrian walkways is mentioned, and I

[1:06:11] just get a freeze of fear every time I hear pedestrian walkways because that is not

[1:06:18] a sidewalk. And if you don't have a sidewalk, you don't have a curb and a gutter,

[1:06:24] and if you don't have a curb and a gutter, you've got stormwater problems and you've

[1:06:29] got pedestrian safety issues. And we've already heard a lot of questions

[1:06:37] about traffic concerns. There is a way for people to move from

[1:06:46] That area of Folsom into town as a non-vehicular

[1:06:54] movement. But it's, if it's not safe, they're not gonna do it. So I really wanna

[1:07:02] see curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in anything that comes in the city and, and I agree.

[1:07:09] I meant to ask about that. Because the application is not entirely clear. It says

[1:07:14] sidewalks. The application itself says that sidewalks are included, and then there's

[1:07:20] some discussion of extension of existing walkways, and I think it said skyline. Lane,

[1:07:27] but I guess the only one I'm aware of is Skyline Drive. So I, I guess I would like

[1:07:33] to hear something on sidewalks and pedestrian because I'm pretty sure the houses

[1:07:38] up there don't have sidewalks. They, they play in the street. They do not. Yeah,

[1:07:43] some areas have a paved. Pedestrian path. Which is

[1:07:50] completely different from a curb which diverts a speeding car away from a pedestrian.

[1:07:58] I mean, that's what curbs do. They also channel stormwater runoff. Um, and that is

[1:08:06] just something I wanna see. So, when I see pedestrian pathways, no offense, Mr. Nelson,

[1:08:12] it makes me nervous because I've heard it in other things, and, um, and I, it's not

[1:08:19] what I want. It's not the Polson, we're gonna see development. And I just wanna be

[1:08:25] able to look at development. I can't say 50 years anymore because I won't be here,

[1:08:30] but I wanna look at development down the road and say, yeah, I'm really proud that

[1:08:35] I was on the commission when that development came in, and that made Paulson a better

[1:08:40] place for everybody to live. Thanks, Caroline. So Caroline, on page 7, I'm just trying

[1:08:46] to clarify this is Laura. Plans provide pedestrian routes and phased park access.

[1:08:52] Um PMC 604,260 requires safe routes to the development boundaries at least 5 ft wide

[1:08:58] for pedestrians or 9 ft wide where shared with bicycles. And roots serving a phase

[1:09:04] must function without later phase construction. So there's been consideration of

[1:09:10] how to move people besides moving in a car, which is one of the fundamental parts

[1:09:16] of complete streets, but A curb is a safety feature.

[1:09:26] Will these be curved curved streets, Rob, do you know? Well, I think it's kind of

[1:09:29] early. I mean, preliminary, it is, it's, um, it's not too early to ask all part of

[1:09:35] this I may be deferred to Mr. Nelson, but as part of the, the, at least the pre-application

[1:09:42] process, there was a discussion of continuing, um, similar to the neighboring. Where

[1:09:48] they had um kind of a borrow ditch, and then there's an asphalt pathway, I know that's

[1:09:53] part of it. Really, what the development code requires is a pedestrian pathway, whether

[1:10:00] that's an asphalt pathway or a sidewalk, and that's part of the engineering review

[1:10:06] is when we'll actually Look at, look at those plans in specific and to ensure that

[1:10:12] there's a pedestrian pathway, so that is at least from planning that would be uh

[1:10:17] my requirement or our requirement. Is that there's some sort of pathway so they're

[1:10:22] not on the road. That, that's still the, sorry, this is Carolyn again, and not to

[1:10:26] belabor the point, but it that still doesn't, uh, that might make it safe. A barrel

[1:10:30] pit and a um pedestrian pathway is way safer than just a strip on the side of the

[1:10:37] road, which was what we had on um 17th Avenue for years with all the middle schoolers

[1:10:45] walking up and down that. It does not address the collection of stormwater. Which

[1:10:50] is still a big concern of mine. So I'm just making my concerns known. Um, cause it's

[1:10:56] way easier to deal with concerns if some, if you know what they are, right?

[1:11:02] OK, so to revisit that real quick, this is what curves are planned for the streets.

[1:11:07] No, no curves. The vision was to continue the theme from the adjacent sky view subdivision.

[1:11:13] Just continue it right through. If you're familiar with it up there, it does have

[1:11:17] the paved pedestrian pathway, not contiguous to the actual road, and they use the

[1:11:22] distance between them for routing of stormwater and forced driveway access. And,

[1:11:28] and I get that, Jack, um, uh, this is Carolyn again. I just, when I look at things

[1:11:35] like that, I mean, I look at Ralson edition where they didn't put in any sidewalks,

[1:11:41] they didn't put in any stormwater runoff, and you kind of look at, oh well, we made

[1:11:45] a bad decision here and we're gonna continue with the bad decision. So you're somehow

[1:11:51] you're gonna have to prove to me. That continuing it is not. An expedited way of

[1:11:59] doing business. It's the right way of doing business because, as I said, I know development

[1:12:04] is coming, but I want the development to be something that I can be proud of, that

[1:12:09] I can take my granddaughter. I, I can see Jackson up there and say, hey man, I was

[1:12:13] on commission when we did this. It's really, it looks really good, huh. So that's

[1:12:18] my feeling. And that kind of raises Mr. Engstrom's issue with it's, it's considerably

[1:12:25] more dense than what is already up there, so which might warrant different infrastructure.

[1:12:33] Good point.

[1:12:36] Mr. Mayor, may I have another comment, or is that um, you still have a chance. Got

[1:12:41] it. Give us a second. Thank you for asking. All right, so commission, any further

[1:12:47] discussion, I might have one more question. I I wrote some things down. Um Oh,

[1:12:55] on the covenants. So, so, and maybe this is for Mr. Nelson, a question for Mr. Nelson,

[1:13:03] or Rob, you guys might know, I don't know very much about homeowners associations

[1:13:08] or covenants when they go on property, but we, our hands are tied on a lot of

[1:13:16] restrictions, but if there's a homeowners association, Can can they implement covenants

[1:13:24] or more restrictions like on building height or um number of units things like just

[1:13:31] and this is a general question um but answer that OK is that OK with you guys yep

[1:13:36] ok I'll answer real quickly um so um all private covenants easements agreements

[1:13:44] conditions restrictions. Those are all the responsibility of the landowner to meet.

[1:13:50] So there's an actual specific question or uh section within the Pulse and Development

[1:13:55] Code which states the city does not enforce private covenants. Typically, where we

[1:14:00] see covenants or homeowners associations, um, are oftentimes maybe within a condo

[1:14:06] agreement, condominium agreement, and what we review our, our city attorney reviews

[1:14:12] are just to, to ensure they have the necessary elements. Um, as to the specifics

[1:14:17] of that, um, the city is not, does not participate in that unless we're a part, unless

[1:14:24] it's a specific covenant for something that the city is a party to, such as, um,

[1:14:30] an ease, you know, I can't really think of a hypothetical, but if there was an easement

[1:14:34] that. That's part of a covenant that has city infrastructure in it and maybe we're

[1:14:38] part of that agreement, but typically um those are private agreements and um they

[1:14:45] could have additional restrictions on maximum building heights or number of units,

[1:14:51] um, so on and so forth so. Thank you, thanks Rob.

[1:14:58] That seems so crazy to me that the homeowners association can put restrictions on,

[1:15:05] but the municipality can't. It just seems crazy to me. It's 5 inches. That's the

[1:15:10] way it goes, yeah. Homeowners made it before. So any other commission discussion

[1:15:15] right now?

[1:15:18] All right, let's take some more public comment, please. Now's your time. Burt Price

[1:15:23] again. So where I got the uh multi-families, I saw it on YouTube when I was about

[1:15:29] announcing this meeting, that's where I got the multi-family, so I don't mind that

[1:15:33] I'm off on that. I really appreciate some of these questions because I think health

[1:15:39] and safety, if it's not a maybe regarding shortage of water, it's a fact. I

[1:15:47] mean, you could put another storage tank for just specifically for that, you know,

[1:15:52] you're gonna have to do another pumping station. You know, for the sewage, and if

[1:15:57] that's not health and safety, if you don't have water and sewage, you know, the runoff,

[1:16:02] that's a public healthy safety issue. I think you may have your, uh, the direction

[1:16:09] it is here, you have your hands tied to this particular phase. Of, of where it's

[1:16:15] at. Uh, but I believe as, as you indicated, Carolyn, I mean, there's a different

[1:16:21] steps, and definitely before they start turning the ground or putting pipes in or

[1:16:28] infrastructure, you know, things that can be done and called for, like curbs, things

[1:16:34] like that, uh, before it gets the final green light to build, and I think that uh

[1:16:41] request. That you consider that uh uh amongst the members here as, as a safety net

[1:16:48] to kind of, you know, put in some of the missing pieces possibly that need to be

[1:16:53] put in. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any other public comments?

[1:17:03] Mhm

[1:17:10] Hi, Terry Cova here. I live on JB Drive, which um comes out on Skyline, and uh I

[1:17:17] highly advise the commission not to do a public road privately maintained. That was

[1:17:24] a headache for over 40 years on JB Drive, and it's not allowed in the United

[1:17:32] States according to the laws that we were able to obtain, and it was such a headache.

[1:17:39] And so I, I advise you not to do a public road privately maintained. I, I get what

[1:17:44] you're saying that the, the city doesn't have the, um, capacity to take on additional

[1:17:50] roads, but I don't recommend going that route. I don't like private roads, but yeah,

[1:17:58] no, the other thing I wanna do is really thank the um people who have come here.

[1:18:04] Um, I think what they've done is identified for the developers these are like the

[1:18:09] top 6 issues and um I understand the developers are saying, well, you know, it's

[1:18:14] too cold. But um if you wanna be a partner with the city, you know, go ahead and,

[1:18:20] you know, meet the city halfway, and I really wanna thank the commission for your

[1:18:25] great uh questions and looking out for the people of Folsom. Thank you, Terry. Thanks.

[1:18:34] Neither public convent in the room.

[1:18:38] Anything online, chief. There was, uh, one online. It was already asked and answered.

[1:18:44] It was about low density. And there was another one in regards to, um, does the city

[1:18:51] have the bandwidth to patrol the area? Uh, park safety is currently an issue. What

[1:18:56] about the potential park that they're talking about? Um, the short answer is yes,

[1:19:00] we, we already patrol that up there as it's part of the city, and I have investigated

[1:19:05] some of those crashes that were brought up earlier and it is about 2 a year, but

[1:19:09] we do have the the bandwidth for patrol up there and that's it. All right, thank

[1:19:15] you. All right, so, um, Dave, can I ask you a question on the record? Yes,

[1:19:23] just so everybody's clear how this process goes, could you just walk us through it

[1:19:26] very basically, um. What we would be approving or disapproving tonight and then if

[1:19:32] that goes forward, what are the next steps. So today is the opening of the application

[1:19:37] for them to begin, and that's for the engineering review infrastructure and implement

[1:19:41] the infrastructure referral to come back to the final flat as we heard tonight. There's

[1:19:45] a lot of engineering review, and those questions can only be answered after engineering

[1:19:49] review is done. So today is only the opening of the application and then setting

[1:19:54] that setting that timeline for that phase development aspect, um, and that. So that's

[1:19:59] where we are today. If you would like me, if there's anything else you want me to

[1:20:03] elaborate on. Mhm Um, Can I ask you a question

[1:20:11] about it in the same, in the same idea. So at this approval gives

[1:20:19] the people Mr. Nelson is here representing, um, the chance to begin spending

[1:20:26] money. To see if this development can meet the conditions that the city requires.

[1:20:34] Is that about right? If we would deny it, then he wouldn't move forward with any

[1:20:40] of the engineering reports, any.

[1:20:46] But approving it just says that we're gonna let these the money be spent in a significant

[1:20:52] amount of money, I'm sure to start solving these engineering issues that people have

[1:20:58] brought up. Uh, there's already been a sign it's my understanding. Or there's some

[1:21:04] assumptions here, but there's already been a significant amount of engineering that

[1:21:07] has been spent, but what hasn't occurred is the city's official review and as part

[1:21:13] of that there's gonna be additional requirements such as um they'll probably the

[1:21:18] biggest question is the capacity and, and they have the structure getting the necessary

[1:21:23] water and sewer, uh, so on and so forth so um but you'll see is in. Embedded there

[1:21:30] are the design reports for the, the stormwater, for the sewer main

[1:21:37] extension, and for the water, um, extension as well. So, all those reports are,

[1:21:45] there's a, a fair amount of time and energy and engineering that has been spent there,

[1:21:50] but it hasn't been reviewed by the city yet at this point in time, so. So the next

[1:21:55] steps would be a formal application, review fees, city engineering review. And then,

[1:22:02] and then the city engineers. Our engineers will respond and say um you've addressed

[1:22:07] all these items this is additional information that that we need. Is that kind of

[1:22:12] going where you were? Yeah, it's kind of, well, I, same questions here because it,

[1:22:17] it's a super complicated program process and we wanna do it right. We don't wanna

[1:22:23] have to redo it in 20 years because you got it wrong. Well, and we don't wanna, um,

[1:22:28] we don't want people this is Carolyn, we don't want there has been a lot of Oh,

[1:22:35] dissatisfaction from developers about working with the city and we don't wanna send

[1:22:41] somebody down the road spending a ton of money, um, to, to develop something and

[1:22:48] then not have done it right. That's fair. Um, thanks, Carolyn. I have done it right.

[1:22:56] Yes, anybody. So HDR is the city engineer that we contract with, right? That is correct

[1:23:01] for many years. Just to get that on the record, we don't have an official engineer

[1:23:05] on staff. Um, should, uh, HDR. Engineering reports come back about capacity with

[1:23:13] sewer and water. Any fixes that need to be made, any improvements that need to be

[1:23:18] made to allow for this development. The cost of that weighs on the developer, correct?

[1:23:23] That is correct.

[1:23:26] Yeah, and, and as part of that I answered on behalf of the developer or um Mr. Nelson

[1:23:33] may have a response there as well um on the client, but that's the way I understand

[1:23:38] what the project is currently so it's OK.

[1:23:44] This is Carolyn. Can I ask one more? So just again, the super hypothetical, sorry,

[1:23:49] Dave, but let's say the engineering report comes back and says, oh my gosh, this

[1:23:55] looks great. You could put 150 homes there. Then could the developer readjust, come

[1:24:02] to us and readjust the schedule, or the other side would be there's only enough water

[1:24:09] for. 35 homes then you could adjust that those you could adjust it either way depending

[1:24:17] on the engineering reports is that correct any deviation from the preliminary plat

[1:24:22] approval as approved would require an amendment and then we look at the amendment

[1:24:26] is it um is it um. Non-material such you're just adjusting the boundary between two

[1:24:34] lots, it doesn't increase the number of units, uh, you know, all those sorts of things,

[1:24:40] um, if it does, then it would be a material amendment and then we would be. Legally

[1:24:45] noticing and going through there's a significant process similar to what we did tonight

[1:24:50] and so um I would be under the assumption if it was a material amendment then then

[1:24:55] we'd be noticing in the paper and so on and so forth um if that capacity would be

[1:25:01] to. If it's non-material, if it's significant, if they're gonna reduce the reduction,

[1:25:07] then, um, I would have to look at the regulations more closely, but I would be under

[1:25:12] the assumption that that would just be resolved in finally there would be some sort

[1:25:16] of amendment, but yeah, so. Super great, super clear answers on some things that

[1:25:23] I, I, I personally don't know much about, so it's good to, I'm so glad you're here.

[1:25:28] Yeah, and you, Mr. Nelson. Thanks, Carolyn. And because I have a question, one more

[1:25:32] for you guys or two maybe. Thank you. I'm sorry, we're fine, um. Because this isn't

[1:25:38] expedited. Review We don't need any planning board review or approval, correct? Uh,

[1:25:45] that is correct. OK. And also, So I just feel like we're a little, as Carolyn

[1:25:53] alluded to earlier, I mean we have to rule on this or vote on this according to the,

[1:25:58] the state codes, so the city functions under the state laws, right, so we can't just

[1:26:03] subjectively decide as a commission that we just don't want 90 homes up there we

[1:26:07] really have to conform to state law in order to be. Operating legally as a city commission

[1:26:14] correct compliant, yeah, yeah, OK, uh, this is Caroline. Our only out on that is

[1:26:20] safe health, safety, health and welfare, so noncompliance and failure, inability

[1:26:28] to provide infrastructure, yeah, yeah, but that comes later, exactly. Um, well, and

[1:26:34] I don't think some, some part of that we don't know. I mean right now we do the preliminary

[1:26:40] and they make determinations about infrastructure after the fact. I mean, isn't that

[1:26:46] kind of where we are? Is it the, I mean, the sewer, the water, and even to some degree

[1:26:52] street safety. It is gonna be determined after the engineering review and that's

[1:26:58] OK, so this is the preliminary. Then there's the engineering review that hasn't yet

[1:27:02] to be completed. It won't be completed unless the preliminary but some preliminary.

[1:27:07] OK, Dave, I'm sorry to make you repeat this, but can you walk me through it one more

[1:27:10] time? I just wanna make sure everybody's on the same page. I understand. Once we

[1:27:13] receive an application, we determine that, uh, we bring it forth here under expedited

[1:27:18] review. If it passes through expedited review, the plans that were submitted with

[1:27:22] it can be reviewed for engineering. And then they can either be adjusted or if they

[1:27:26] meet the engineering aspect of it, then they can be implemented under the infrastructure.

[1:27:30] And once the infrastructure is installed, then he can come back for a final plot

[1:27:33] approval. Um, if he has additional phases, he can come back under additional phases

[1:27:38] where he completes, uh, infrastructure. In phases and then builds along those phases

[1:27:42] until he has to branch out to a different phase. So we had a map up here, you can't

[1:27:46] quite see it, but it's yellow, purple, green, those represented his three different

[1:27:50] phases, uh, subdividers 3 different phases with regards to how, where he plans to

[1:27:55] build. But the only part that comes before this commission is the preliminary plat.

[1:28:00] Final plat is Mr. Eddington, isn't it? No, the final plat will come before the commission,

[1:28:06] OK. So at least 2 more times the commission, uh, there'll be 1 for each phase affirmatively,

[1:28:12] um, at, at a public meeting if after 5 years, now this is where I, I don't have that,

[1:28:20] the, the new law memorized, but it's my understanding I think it's if it's after

[1:28:23] 5 years then there's a public hearing and so there's no summary requirement so to

[1:28:27] come back for final plot. Approval, um, that would just be, uh, your standard, uh,

[1:28:34] commission agenda item. The item would not be placed in the paper. Adjacent neighbors

[1:28:40] wouldn't be notified. Um, the event where it would be, that would be as if it required

[1:28:45] a hearing such as a, a material amendment, those sorts of things, um. So, and

[1:28:53] 5 years, is that part of the, we're supposed to approve the phase schedule and if

[1:28:59] we approve something longer than 5 years now that does that alter the statutory requirement

[1:29:04] or do you know the answer to that? I don't immediately know the answer, um, as it's,

[1:29:10] uh, a newer law and this is the first time we've been implementing and those things

[1:29:15] change so and it's confusing. It is confusing, um. Well, I lost my train of thought

[1:29:22] on those questions. Are we approving three phases tonight at once, or do they come

[1:29:28] back individually once the final plat? What is before the commission is the overall,

[1:29:33] um, the overall subdivision lot layout and then phase one of the preliminary plat.

[1:29:41] So, so once phase one was completed, theoretically we'd have to come back with phase

[1:29:45] 2 and 3, not for preliminary plats, just for final plat. Mhm. Let me verify

[1:29:53] that. OK. All require final flat approval. Yeah, all require final flat approval.

[1:30:00] So yeah, I'm sorry to keep you, but thank you for your patience. So we also had discussed

[1:30:06] a little bit earlier, um. That phase one when that construction begins that has to

[1:30:14] be absolutely up to code. Say there's buildings, say everything passes tonight, this

[1:30:18] moves forward through all the flat processes and the engineering reviews, so that

[1:30:21] would make accommodations for everything in phase one water, sewer safety turnarounds,

[1:30:27] roads that has to be completed. I'm saying that can't be completed in phase 3. That

[1:30:31] all has to go on with phase one, right. All infrastructure necessary for phase one

[1:30:36] needs to be completed prior to final plot of phase one, and in such a manner that

[1:30:43] you're not waiting on phase two for some of the, the infrastructure. So, so it's

[1:30:49] assumed that there's a potential that maybe the developer decides we're not gonna

[1:30:54] develop anymore and it, it sits there for 30, 20 more years, um, but they need to

[1:31:00] have all necessary infrastructure, um. And probably the, the main thing is the, the

[1:31:05] water sewer, stormwater roads, um, more minor nature would be. Um, cluster boxes

[1:31:13] so adequate so they can receive mail. Um, Mr. Nelson is correct, and he had mentioned,

[1:31:19] um, about the, the school bus service that's spelled out via in state law, so it's

[1:31:25] like 3 miles. If for some reason, uh, there's a bus route and they go right by there

[1:31:31] and they have capacity, they may offer to stop, but they're not required to. So,

[1:31:36] OK. And to a previous question, Rob, do you happen to know, um. Does that, I mean,

[1:31:40] you, I've seen, we've approved subdivisions before where the school system is consulted

[1:31:46] about capacity for students. Um, that should be in the entity comments. Typically,

[1:31:52] uh, schools have capacity. It's just one of those boxes to check typically. And same

[1:31:58] kind of situation with CSKT? And those issues, OK. Thank you, Rob, very much. You're

[1:32:05] welcome. Thank you. All right, commissioners, any further discussion or questions?

[1:32:10] No, I just ask, just to ensure public ask for public comment once more. I'll do it.

[1:32:15] Thanks, Dave. Dave, is there anything else you wanted to throw in there? No, not

[1:32:19] at all. Is there any other public comment at this time, please?

[1:32:26] We have plenty of time. I have one little thing. You bet. OK, Arlene Atkins again.

[1:32:32] So So pedestrian paths, OK, so the side of skyline that we live on

[1:32:40] is where there is one without a curve. And let me tell you, going through the fence,

[1:32:46] our fence, that little, that don't slow up and down. Um, how are they gonna get

[1:32:55] if they live over here, they're gonna have to go across skyline. To get to it

[1:33:03] So you're gonna put a walk bridge? To keep people from dying on those couple of turns.

[1:33:09] I mean, otherwise, they're gonna have to go all the way around. That road during

[1:33:17] our walk across the road. Yeah, I mean, yep, I don't wanna see people, I mean, we

[1:33:24] see enough, and, you know, like in the middle of the night, the sirens and people

[1:33:29] crash, and we don't wanna see somebody die. You see now. You know, yeah,

[1:33:37] thank you, I appreciate you coming, Mr. Nelson. Do you have any?

[1:33:42] Comment on uh Miss Atkins' comment. You don't have to. Well, I would have to agree

[1:33:47] that they will have to cross the street to get to that sidewalk, yeah, or go to the

[1:33:52] top of the hill where the one, I think the one lady, she's still there, yeah, yeah,

[1:33:59] hm. Yeah, the very top of the hill, you know, where the one lady is scared to come

[1:34:05] out of her driveway, I know exactly where she is. The walkway continues. That's where

[1:34:09] the walkway is then on the side of this development. Correct. So either way,

[1:34:18] Could be bad. Understood. Yeah, I had to cross the street to get into this building

[1:34:25] today. Yeah, but that is the skyline. And there's a stoplight, correct, and it's

[1:34:32] not blind corners and people going way faster than the speed limit. There's a lot

[1:34:37] of ice tonight. Yeah, well, in the, in the casino wasn't as good, yeah, but it's

[1:34:43] up now. Yeah, sorry. All right, so moving on, I believe there's no other public comment.

[1:34:50] Yeah. Nothing else online, chief. Thank you. No, ma'am. You're welcome. Thank you

[1:34:54] guys all for being here. Uh, are we commissioner comment? Sure, I was gonna vote

[1:34:59] for this, but after that last comment, I'm voting against it because I don't think

[1:35:03] you have our safety in mind.

[1:35:08] Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but it was just a, a plain response to, you know, suggesting

[1:35:15] that it was that we were creating some sort of unusual safety hazard by having, you

[1:35:21] don't have my boat, the sidewalk to cross the sidewalk to cross the street. It's

[1:35:26] not a street. Thank you, Carolyn. Yeah, it's any other commission discussion please

[1:35:30] before we go. I have one more question for you. Go ahead, Lisa.

[1:35:37] It is your opinion according to your report that this meets the minimum requirements

[1:35:42] of our code, correct? That's correct. OK. And curbs and sidewalks, our code does

[1:35:48] not require curbs and sidewalks in these circumstances. Our code requires um. Conformance

[1:35:56] with the city Pulson standards for design and construction, it does not spell out

[1:36:00] the requirement for curbs and gutters. It requires that they address stormwater,

[1:36:06] water, and sewer, and, um, streets are conformed with the standards of, uh, city

[1:36:12] Pulsive standards for design and construction, which is part of the engineering review.

[1:36:16] OK. So, if we wanna do what Commissioner Pardini asks for every time we have a street

[1:36:23] issue and maybe people put sidewalks and we need to change our design standards.

[1:36:27] OK, thank you. Good point. Thank you. Yeah, but pedestrian pathways are still incorporated.

[1:36:32] Pedestrian pathways are required, right? That's, that's where we have that particular

[1:36:37] authority. What's the difference? Just, I'm curious now, between a pedestrian pathway

[1:36:41] and a sidewalk. Is the sidewalk connected to the curb on the street? The pedestrian

[1:36:45] pathway is a gutter. The neighboring subdivision is a great example of the difference.

[1:36:49] Um, it's not a path or it's not a sidewalk. It's an asphalt, um. Pathway

[1:36:57] there's a there's a ditch in there for storm water and then the pathway and it's

[1:37:01] a means for people to um to walk alongside the road without being in the road so

[1:37:08] um there may be technical definition that I don't have memorized but it's it's pretty

[1:37:14] nice up there it's this is Carolyn it's pretty nice up there. The pedestrian pathways

[1:37:18] up there are pretty nice. Excellent. Thank you, Rob. Thank you. So commissioner,

[1:37:23] is there any other discussion before we go?

[1:37:28] Before we do, I just wanna thank everybody from the public for being here tonight.

[1:37:31] These are really, um, valid concerns, and we're happy to listen to you. We live here

[1:37:36] too, and, um, I just appreciate you all taking the time to be here very much. Yeah,

[1:37:41] anytime. Public meetings. We're always happy to have you only on Monday nights, anytime

[1:37:47] on Monday nights. Um, and I, I last meeting I erroneously threw a, uh, staff employee

[1:37:54] under the bus by saying you can call her, take a bunch of questions. That was Jody.

[1:37:58] I apologize officially on the record to Jody for that, but if you do have further

[1:38:02] questions, um, because this isn't really a question and answer session, and as you

[1:38:05] heard tonight there will be further meetings on this. This is just a very preliminary

[1:38:09] stage. Um, you can contact our city manager, Chief Simpson, and he will get you to

[1:38:15] Rob and Dave if needed, you know, to register some more concerns and ask some more

[1:38:19] questions. Sound good, Sam? Just wanna make sure that's all clear for everybody.

[1:38:26] Um, all right, there's no further discussion. Nothing else online, Chief. No, ma'am.

[1:38:32] We have a motion on the table, so let's take a vote. Commissioner Ruglas for Commissioner

[1:38:37] Reard.

[1:38:40] 4 only because I feel like I'm legally obligated to. Uh, Commissioner Schrader in

[1:38:47] for Commissioner Pardee against, and I am for both. I'll vote also with Commissioner

[1:38:52] Reard's, uh, hesitations, but, um. Respectful of our legal obligations here tonight,

[1:38:58] so to be continued. All right, so that motion does carry tonight. This brings us

[1:39:03] to Agenda item. Wrong meeting. Agenda item 8, which is commissioner's comments on

[1:39:11] matters not on the agenda. Commissioners, do you got anything to make?

[1:39:17] Tracy's not here. Give us an update on the high school. I don't know. OK, no, I just

[1:39:23] wanna say that, um, Chief Simpson and I are attending the Montana League of Cities

[1:39:29] and Towns conference this week, so we'll report back, um. I was asked to be on the

[1:39:34] board for the Montana League of Cities and Towns to represent Folsom, so against

[1:39:39] my better judgment, I'm not attending more meetings in my life. I accept it, so I,

[1:39:43] I'll do that and report back to you guys on that too. Cool. Anything else, Jan? Anything

[1:39:47] going on in Romeo? Um, just the mural painting. I saw pictures. It looks nice. It

[1:39:54] is nice, isn't it? Love if Polson would do a paint by number with the kids. That

[1:40:01] would just be great instead of adults doing it when we get a Main Street grant. Yeah,

[1:40:07] because it's 20 days, yeah, and thanks to Chief Simpson for working on our growth

[1:40:13] policy. We will then be able to apply for a Main Street grant that has to be done

[1:40:18] first. All right, yeah, they're because they're still doing them, the. Well, Main

[1:40:24] Street and they're still doing the tourism grants because they just released um Cohort

[1:40:29] 3, so they are still doing the pilot tourism grants, so. And the agrotourism

[1:40:37] grant, what is that? We ought to be getting that. Well, I don't know, we can't get

[1:40:42] a, uh, can't get a, uh, resort tax, so, you know, agrotourism probably wouldn't work

[1:40:49] cause, you know, we don't grow any crops around here in town, do we? Some people

[1:40:54] might be. I know Lisa does. I got an orchard. I don't know. Uh, all right, anything

[1:41:02] else for you guys? Um, no, good job, Laura. Thank you. There's something going on.

[1:41:08] Oh, the governor's summit is this month, and the farmers, the Montana Farmers

[1:41:16] Union's convention is the 15th, I think, in Helena. So that's kind of an important

[1:41:22] one if you're into that kind of stuff. So excellent, good information. Thanks, Jen.

[1:41:27] Um, I also did have another meeting with Representative Rexton and Paul Bishop and

[1:41:34] Dennis Dody, that was the four of us, just regarding preliminary talks about how

[1:41:38] we would move forward if the city was on board with a lake walk. You like the river

[1:41:43] walk, and it would extend from Quatuck to Matty's Marina, you know, pedestrian safety

[1:41:48] walk, yeah, yeah, since you brought that up. You have another meeting with Linda.

[1:41:53] Um, I, I believe that the project that the golf course and the Lakers are working

[1:41:59] on, that retention pond, is running into a little bit of a hiccup with state regulations,

[1:42:06] and Linda might be able to smooth that. She might know the right people to talk to.

[1:42:11] I, I just heard that report. In a cocktail concert conversation, um, but sure, I'll

[1:42:19] ask her, yeah, because city manager, you can maybe ask Mr. Nolan. She's, she's, um,

[1:42:24] Linda's repeatedly said that she's willing to continue to be a lame duck advocate,

[1:42:30] so, and that she is. Yeah, for sure. Oh, I'd love if our, um, two representative

[1:42:36] or two candidates for representing Paulson would love to come, you know, introduce

[1:42:42] themselves considering we see one fairly frequently and one has never shown his face.

[1:42:47] That would be wonderful. They are certainly welcome to come. Yes, they are a public

[1:42:51] meeting. Yes. All righty. Anything else, commissioners? All right, can I have a,

[1:42:56] oh, thanks to the staff for being here. Thanks to Cora. Thanks to Chief. Thanks to

[1:43:00] Link. Thanks to Dave and Rob and Don. Sorry, Don, thanks to Don. Thank you. We took

[1:43:06] wonderful pictures for our website recently. Thank you, Don. Yes, you're welcome.

[1:43:10] Can I have a motion to adjourn, please? I would so move. In a second. I'll second

[1:43:16] motion from Commissioner Reard. Second from Commissioner Rutled. All in favor. Hi,

[1:43:19] I'm the guy. We're adjourned. Thank you.

[1:43:24] I know I was gonna say something.

City Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript