The Ravalli County Commissioners held some closed door meetings this year ostensibly to consider litigation strategy concerning the federal lawsuit filed by several developers who claimed that their subdivision proposals had not been handled appropriately by the county.

The whole situation dates back to 2005 when the legislature adopted new laws governing subdivision of land in the state. The legislature gave counties, whose regulations were not in compliance with the new laws, a year to bring their local regulations into compliance. Ravalli County's subdivision regulations were not in compliance, and the county did not bother to revise them. As a result, in October of 2006 the county regulations existing at the time were officially unlawful and thus unenforceable.

The County Commissioners decided not to continue to process subdivisions under the non-compliant regulations and suspended review of all applications in the pipeline at the time. In a concentrated effort, the regulations were then revised within about a month. But in the meantime the voters passed an emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance that limited development to one dwelling per two acres. As a result many of the pending applications that were put on hold were now deemed to be in violation of the Interim Zoning restrictions since they proposed greater densities than the 'one per two' zoning allowed.

Fourteen developers subsequently filed suit in federal court in January 2007 (Lords et al v. Ravalli County) claiming that the county violated the timelines set by statute for processing their applications. They sought damages that could have added up to millions of dollars.

Although a possible settlement agreement was being discussed among the Commissioners and county staff and attorneys for the developers by as early as February, those discussions did not involve the public until a public meeting was scheduled for June 4, 2007. The first draft of a settlement proposal was submitted to county officials by attorneys for the developers sometime in April. More drafts were produced as the process continued. Phil Taylor, author of the Interim Zoning Initiative, asked repeatedly for access to documents concerning any proposed settlement but was repeatedly denied. He continued asking intermittently right up until ten minutes before the public meeting scheduled for June 4, 2007 but was still denied.

At the June 4 meeting a draft copy of a proposed settlement agreement was presented and public comment was solicited. Most of those commenting noted that they had not had adequate time to review the material. The county commission suggested that those present could review the material during the two breaks that were taken to allow the developer's attorneys to consult with their clients over proposed changes. The meeting was then continued until the next day, June 5, so that a final copy of the agreement, including agreed upon changes made that day, could be produced. The next morning they approved a settlement agreement that would allow the developers to re-apply with priority status, some to be reviewed under old regulations and some under the new regulations, but all exempt from the emergency Interim Zoning restrictions limiting development to one dwelling per two acres. The settlement agreement was filed in federal court on the afternoon of June 6.

Taylor and Bitterrooters for Planning subsequently filed suit in district court challenging the settlement agreement on the grounds that the public was denied the right to participate in a meaningful fashion.

The law allows government bodies to meet behind closed doors to discuss litigation strategy when involved in a lawsuit, but court case history has established that any settle agreements must be negotiated in the open and allow meaningful participation by the public in any settlement decision.

Although the public was included in only the last two days of these negotiations, the entire record of the county's deliberations is by law open to the public. Although Taylor continued to request access to those records, he was denied. Deputy County Attorney Alex Beal denied Taylor's request and told him that his lawyer must seek those records through the trial discovery process. As of Monday, Taylor had still not been allowed access to the documents. His attorney, Sarah McMillan, maintains that Taylor has the same right to access public documents as any other citizen regardless of the fact that he is suing the county.

In the meantime, the Bitterroot Star requested and received over 50 pages of documents, including e-mails, related to the settlement agreement. Those records date back to February, 2007. Although no records of any closed meetings were provided, the e-mails that circulated between county legal council, commissioners, and county staff do provide a glimpse into the process preceding the public meetings and provide some answers to questions raised by the public about the process. Too late, however, for the public to use the information in forming their comments.

For instance, there is no question now that the settlement process was accelerated in the hopes of completing it before the newly expanded Board of County Commissioners took office on June 13. County Planner Karen Hughes mentions in an e-mail in May that the Plaintiffs wanted to settle before June 1. Allen Chronister, an attorney working for the county (or its insurance company, its not clear), states in a May 25 e-mail, "The issue that kept come (sic) up was whether the settlement issue can be considered by the current Commission before the new expanded commission is seated. I told him [attorney for the plaintiffs William Van Canagan] that my understanding has been that the intent has been for that to happen, but we are running short of time."

Another recurrent theme in the e-mail discussions was the nature and extent of public involvement in the settlement process that might be required by law.

In the same e-mail of May 25, Chronister states, "Assuming that we (their side, and our negotiating group) agree on an agreement, we need to determine how and when it is considered by the Commission. I told him that the Commission would probably want/need to allow for public comment and would have to take the matter up at a noticed meeting, whether regular or special. So--how do we do this? When (how fast) can we get it done?"

Beal responded on the same day, stating, "We'll need a regular old meeting, stick (sic) in on the calendar 48 hours in advance. My advice would be to have a hybrid public/private meeting. Begin the meeting in open session, take whatever public comment is there, then close the meeting for a discussion by the board. A little cumbersome, but it should satisfy all challenges."

Chronister responds in an e-mail dated May 29, "The plaintiff's attorneys have their hair on fire about all this, wanting to get things done very quickly. Plaintiffs, understandably, do not want a public hearing on the issue. I told him that I intend to defer to the opinion of the Commission and the County Attorney office on the required procedure. Van C. [attorney for the plaintiffs Van Canagan] said he'd heard that the Commission favored having no hearing and considering the settlement in executive session."

Beal responded that same day, saying, "The decision is certainly the commissioners' to make on open/closed meetings. My advice, on starting as a public meeting/closing after public comment, comes from both a review of case law but also a county attorney's conference at MACo [Montana Association of Counties] two weeks ago. This seems to be (more or less) the consensus position on how to do it. A call to MACo might be worthwhile on this one. If nothing else he can probably confirm if I'm right or wrong on the statewide consensus.

"My concern about an entirely closed meeting is the possibility that the settlement could be invalidated on open meeting grounds. It's an area of the law that I try not to run afoul of because it seems to be growing like a black hole to envelop everything. The other question is, how to make the decision? Can Alan, Greg, and Howard have a closed door meeting to decide if they're going to have a closed door meeting?

"There is also the possibility, and I am aware of the potential political issues here, of having an open meeting with public comment on this on sometime after June 5 [election day] but before the new commissioners come on, whenever that is."

Beal did contact Norm Grosfield of MACo about these concerns and then e-mailed Chronister and the commissioners and Planning Director Karen Hughes on the same day, May 29, stating that he and Grosfield were "on the same page."

"All discussions of the settlement prior to the public meeting can and should remain behind closed doors pursuant to the litigation strategy exception. However, there needs to be some public ability to comment on the settlement. Additionally, Norm recommends that all board comment and action post-public comment be open to the public as well. In other words, after 3 pm Thursday, this thing should be open to the public until the end, unless we back out of this particular settlement draft. I'm guessing that we're going to need to have copies of the proposed settlement available to the public then as well."

That was a good guess. Some members of the public claim, however, that by waiting until the last second, until the very moment that the public meeting was opened, to release any information about the settlement was not fair, or legal. A lawsuit has been filed to that effect, claiming that the public was deprived the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the decisionmaking process as a result.

Beal and Grosfield were both wrong, it turns out, in their determination that all discussions of the settlement prior to the public meeting can and should remain behind closed doors. All those records were required to be released upon public request and were released once the Bitterroot Star requested it.

Since Taylor can obviously now get copies of the documents from the Bitterroot Star, it is not surprising that Beal is now suggesting that the documents will probably be released to Taylor's attorney even though she has not yet officially asked for them in discovery.

Another thread running through the settlement discussions via e-mail was the question of whether the county could exempt the subdivisions in question from the Interim Zoning restrictions that would limit development to one dwelling per two acres.

At first there was some suggestion that the county might amend the Interim Zoning Ordinance itself to allow this. That tack was quickly abandoned, however.

After examining the most recent draft of the agreement at the time, May 30, Beal states, "Am I missing something or does it flat out say, '1 per 2 doesn't apply to any of the plaintiffs'?"

According to Beal's "70 day" argument, the county acknowledged that it took too much time to process 11 of the 14 subdivisions and tried to correct that by not counting time against them. Three of the plaintiffs, however, did not fit in this category. In the proposed settlement, the county would "pretend" that the hearing took place within the 70-day timeline after the proposal was submitted, according to Beal.

"If they get denied, the clock starts running again, and keeps running until another hearing or until we take too long. If you don't want to do that," Beal wrote in his e-mail to Chronister and Hughes, "that's certainly your choice. But I'm fairly certain that paragraph 4 as it reads today does not accomplish that. Paragraph 4 today appears to just invalidate 1 per 2 for all the Lords' plaintiffs. If that's your choice, so be it, just know that is what you are doing."

Chronister wrote back, "As to paragraph 4, as I stated the other day, it appears that the late 3 will NOT be included in this agreement unless you from the county side change your mind. Also, I understand the County's rationale for the 70-day window for the first 11. I have tried very hard to find something like a paragraph 4 that will suit everyone, but without success. The language you comment on is not mine, but the plaintiffs. I suggested to the plaintiffs that there is no need to expressly say that, and that expressly saying it exposes the agreement to additional grounds for collateral attack. They, however, are quite confident that they want this language in the agreement and that it is no threat. As I have told them, if the agreement is attacked in court, they will have to carry the burden of upholding it."

Beal responds, writing, "As for paragraph 4, either way, the county is agreeing that 1 per 2 does not apply to the 11 plaintiffs. Very true. However the reason that 1 per 2 does not apply seems very important to me. The current paragraph 4 is based upon a very different rationale than what I had thought we were talking about. It makes no distinction between the 14 plaintiffs, they're all in. It therefore just flat out invalidates 1 per 2 for an unspecified reason. Perhaps that it's not retroactive? Perhaps that the commissioners are by this settlement repealing it? It's not explained, and I fear that it will not hold up in court, or at the very least, that it will lead to further (and lengthy) litigation."

Chronister says that he will "take another stab at it."

Then it is suggested by Planning Director Karen Hughes that the county could use the rationale of the "zoning letter" that she produced for the commissioners. Beal then revised the letter and included it by reference in the agreement.

That letter states that the county failed to process the subdivisions within the legal timeline of 70 days for a major subdivision and 45 days for minor one in part because of its failure to complete the legislature's mandated regulation revisions which then resulted in the cessation of subdivision applications. Since those subdivision reviews should have been completed before November 7, when the Interim Zoning went into effect, the county agrees to process them now.

"The Interim Zoning regulation will not be applied to them so long as the deemed date of their review is prior to November 7, 2006," states the letter.

Although three of the 14 subdivision proposals involved in the lawsuit were not included in the settlement agreement because the county determined that they were not submitted within the 70-day (major) and 45-day (minor) windows established in the agreement, there are other subdivision applications that were submitted during that time frame that did not join in the lawsuit that will now also be reconsidered as well. According to County Planner John Lavey, the county attorney's office advised the planning department that all subdivision applications that were submitted within the time frame should now be able to be reviewed under the provisions of the settlement agreement even though they were not part of the lawsuit. The planning staff notified those applicants of this determination by mail and, according to Lavey, all four have decided to re-apply under that arrangement. They include the 73-lot development One Horse Estates, the 9-lot Rivers Edge II, the 4-lot River View Orchards, and the 2-lot Florence Orchard Homes. All involve a density greater than the 1 per 2 restrictions of the Interim Zoning regulation.

Forest officials crafting Travel Management Plan

By Michael Howell

After months of considering input from a variety of public and agency sources, the Bitterroot National Forest has crafted a Proposed Action for its Travel Management Planning project.

The Forest is undertaking this travel management planning effort in order to re-examine and clarify where motorized recreation is appropriate, sustainable and desirable on the non-wilderness portions of the Bitterroot National Forest. In its initial proposal, the Forest is suggesting some changes to both summer and winter motorized recreational use on specific roads, trails and areas.

"Our goal," explains Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull, "is to develop a mix of motorized and non-motorized opportunities that provide quality experiences and protect the natural resources, then clearly illustrate those opportunities on a map that is easy to understand and use."

The Proposed Action is the first step in the National Environmental Policy Action (NEPA) environmental analysis process.

"The proposed action is the first step, or starting point, in the process of deciding what roads, trails and areas on the Bitterroot National Forest are appropriate for motorized use, and which roads, trails and areas should be managed for non-motorized use," stresses Stevensville District Ranger Dan Ritter, who was appointed by Supervisor Bull to lead the effort. "We've worked with several groups throughout the past year or two who have expressed concerns about some aspect of motorized use, and we want to continue this dialogue with our users as we move forward in this project," said Ritter.

Public meetings to discuss the proposed action are planned for November before the end of the comment period. Dates, times and locations will be announced later. By early December, the forest will utilize the public comments received to develop alternatives and evaluation criteria. Ritter expects to have a draft Environmental Impact Statement available for public review by August 2008, and a final EIS completed by May 2009.

Public comments on the Proposed Action are due by November 23, 2007 and should be mailed to the Travel Management Planning Team, Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville MT 59870. Comments can also be faxed to (406) 777-7423 or e-mailed to comments-northern-bitterroot@fs.fed.us.

For more information about the project you may contact: Dan Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger at 777-5461, or the Project Team Leader Sandy Mack at 777-7451. Travel Management planning documents will be posted on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/bitterroot/projects/ and the public can view paper copies of the maps at libraries in Missoula, Stevensville, Hamilton, Darby, and at Forest Service offices in Stevensville, Hamilton, Darby, Sula and West Fork.

Gravel washing wash out

By Michael Howell

A complaint has been filed with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) over a gravel washing operation conducted by the Ravalli County Road and Bridge Department. According to the complainant, Mark Behrman, polluted water from the gravel washing operation was running into a wetlands and creek adjacent to the work area located near the Ravalli County Airport for over a week.

Behrman said that he got a call about the situation a few weeks ago and went to investigate. He saw a large amount (he estimates 1 to 2 cubic feet per second) of very opaque, dirt filled water running from the gravel washing site down a roadway and through a culvert under the road into a creek and wetland area. He returned a little later and witnessed road department personnel placing a few hay bales in the road to try and stem the flow, unsuccessfully. He took a few dozen pictures of the situation and gathered some water samples.

Road Department Supervisor David Ohnstad, when questioned by the Bitterroot Star, dismissed the complaint saying that the operation near the airport was not new and that it was not a problem. He said that water from the gravel washing project collected in a settling pond. When the settling pond overflows, he said, it runs into a nearby ditch. He suggested that Behrman, who lives across the valley near the Lost Horse Quarry, might be trying to make the county look bad because he was unhappy about the gravel operation proposed near his home. That proposal has been very controversial and drawn quite a bit of opposition from local residents as well as rock climbers and other recreationists.

Behrman said that he is very concerned about the Lost Horse Quarry proposal and subsequently very concerned about the county's gravel operations in general, which is why he responded to the call alerting him to the incident near the airport, where much of the gravel from the Lost Horse Quarry project would be transported for further processing. He said the same kind of gravel washing was being proposed within a few hundred yards of Lost Horse Creek.

"If they are not doing things right near the airport, why should we believe they will be doing things right at Lost Horse Quarry," said Behrman. He flatly contradicted Ohnstad's claim that the polluted water was running into a ditch.

"It's running into a creek and associated wetlands," said Behrman. He said that even if it was running into a ditch it would still be a problem.

Commissioner Kathleen Driscoll, who went to view the site the same day that Behrman discovered it, agreed with Behrman.

"I'm not an expert," said Driscoll, "but it certainly looks like a wetland to me." She said that the water running into the "wetland" at the site was obviously muddy looking and that the hay bales that had been placed to stem the flow were very ineffective.

Ed Coleman, head of investigation at DEQ, said that his department had received a complaint and that judging by the photographs that accompanied it there does appear to be a possible water quality violation. He said that an inspector from the department would be inspecting the site soon. In the meantime, he said, he had been assured by Ohnstad that the gravel washing operation had ceased so that there was no ongoing immediate concern.

Behrman said that he was not trying to create trouble but he was very concerned about the county's gravel operations. He said that it was the pollution of the creek and wetlands that was the problem and it was a problem created by the county road department.

Main Street to celebrate accomplishments

By Michael Howell

The Stevensville Main Street Association will hold its second annual Boast & Toast event on Saturday, October 6. The event, which features a special dinner made from locally grown ingredients, a cash raffle drawing and a silent auction, will start at 6 p.m. at St. Mary's Family Center. Admission is $10 and beer and wine will be available.

2007 was another growth year for Stevensville and the Main Street organization, according to board member Victoria Howell, who just ended a two-year term as president. The downtown saw just over $1 million in new construction and the creation of nine new jobs. Two jobs were created through business expansion, and $205,900 was invested in private commercial building improvements.

The four committees of the Main Street Association have all been active, with a total of 1,807 volunteer hours reported this year. The organization committee has concentrated on fundraising activities and educational programs. The successful Leadership Stevensville series is underway once again.

For the past year, the Stevensville Main Street Association has also been participating in the BEAR program (business expansion and retention), which is coordinated by the Ravalli County Economic Development Authority whose director, Julie Foster, sits on the Main Street board of directors. A survey of businesses is being conducted which helps to identify business strengths and weaknesses. Committee members then help find solutions to problems faced by local business owners.

The Main Street design committee is in the planning stage of a Historic Lighting & Streetscape Project. In addition, members are working on a sign ordinance proposal for Stevensville.

Perhaps the most visible activities of the Main Street Association are performed by the promotion committee, which brings you First Friday, Western Heritage Days, the Christmas gift fair, and many other retail events.

According to Joan Prather, SMSA Executive Director, volunteers are the backbone of the organization. "All our committees are made up of volunteers who use their time, talent, and energy to make Stevensville a great place to live and a desirable destination for visitors."

Saturday's Boast and Toast will be a chance to honor all those volunteers and their accomplishments, and maybe interest some new ones. Mel Walters, just back from running the State Main Street Program in Helena, will be welcomed as the new president.

Everyone is welcome to attend this fun evening. For more information contact Joan Prather at the Main Street office, 777-3773.

New director at Ravalli County Museum

By Michael Howell

Tamar Stanley, the new Director of the Ravalli County Museum, Tamar Stanley, is not exactly new to the Ravalli County Museum or to the job of museum director. She has already served as the museum's Interim Director following the retirement of past Executive Director Helen Ann Bibler. Stanley worked as a museum assistant for about six months before that. All of this was preceded by years of volunteer work as part of Apple Days. She has fond memories of the team work involved in producing the tasty Butte tamales and, following that, the "legendary and delicious" McIntosh apple pies.

Stanley hopes to build upon the accomplishments of former Executive Director Helen Bibler, not just preserve the status quo.

"I will collaborate with those contacts that have already been established and forge new relationships in order to maintain and enhance the Museum's Mission Statement," wrote Stanley in her bid for the job.

And that is just what she is doing in a very energetic fashion since stepping into the executive director position.

Although Stanley recognizes that one of a museum's primary objectives is to collect, preserve and exhibit objects that are valuable from an art, history, or science perspective, she also believes museums should be considered as educational agencies, research institutions, and most of all as accessible cultural centers.

Stanley told the Bitterroot Star that she was going to try and open some clear and effective channels of communication between the Ravalli County Museum and all the other existing museums in the valley with the aim of developing some co-operative programs that may involve shared or traveling exhibits. Stanley is also looking at coordinating exhibits at the museum more closely with other events in the valley. Some thoughts are being given to expanding into the night with a possible performance exhibit, "evening story time" being planned for some time after Thanksgiving.

Stanley's enthusiasm for her work is evident as she focuses upon the day to day operations of the museum with an eye for possibilities. She describes her own abilities as "learning from others, listening to their needs, understanding what works, and what may need attention, I keep an open mind and solicit input from others to use in a constructive and positive way." She sees the ability to promote working relationships as integral to the director's position.

Stanley is excited about the upcoming wolf exhibit titled, "Wolf: Real or Imagined." It is a program about wolves in art and in language arts. It crystallized around a collection of art about wolves owned by Frank Lawrence, Phd. But it will also involve participation by artist Bruce Weide and Pat Tucker, a wolf biologist. Middle school students will also participate and produce interactive art pieces as part of the program.

An Indian education program by John Recore is also planned to take place in December.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2006 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney