The Ravalli County Commissioners took their first step toward addressing the public mandate to establish comprehensive county wide zoning, in response to the Interim Zoning Initiative approved in the November elections, by adopting a set of planning program goals and priorities. The decision to adopt the list of priorities was the outcome of a public meeting and work session held on December 13, that included members of the Planning Board and Planning Department staff.

Potential goals were established and priority ratings given based upon legal requirements, current Growth Policy goals, and comments heard at the November 29 public meeting including input from the public as well as consideration of newly approved ballot issues.

Highest priority went to the goal of creating a plan for public involvement. Second on the list was meeting the deadlines for subdivision review. After this comes implementing countywide zoning and associated projects. Fourth on the list was the goal of establishing an Open Lands program. Last on the short list of five goals was to review the county's Growth Policy and consider revisions.

Some activities that were considered and discussed, but did not make it to the "hit list" because they were not required by law and did not receive a significant number of votes from the Planning Board, Planning Department staff and Commissioners, included developing a capital improvement plan, modernizing the subdivision regulations, monitoring and participating in legislative processes, modernizing Flood Plain regulations, implementing impact fees, and developing a transportation plan.

The Planning staff is currently examining the prioritized goals and compiling probable timelines, estimated personnel hours, and resources needed to complete each task. The next strategic planning meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 10 at 7 p.m. and will focus on creating a more detailed plan to meet the established goals. The location is yet to be announced.

Forest Service to consider multiparty monitoring of Middle East Fork Project

By Michael Howell

Feeling left in the dark following a large public closure in the area of the Middle East Fork Fuel Reduction Project, two conservation groups, who have a case pending in federal court against the US Forest Service over the project, a group of professors from the Bolle Institute at the University of Montana's College of Forestry and Conservation, and at least one local landowner have asked the Forest Service to establish a multiparty monitoring process for the project.

In a letter to Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull last week, Friends of the Bitterroot and the WildWest Institute asked Bull "to establish a multiparty monitoring, evaluation and accountability process in order to assess the positive or negative ecological and social effects of the Middle East Fork Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) project."

The conservation groups pointed out in their letter that citizen monitoring of ongoing work as part of the project has been made more difficult because of the fact that the Bitterroot National Forest has placed a public closure on approximately 6,000 acres of public lands up the East Fork. They point to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act itself as directing the establishment of a multiparty monitoring process "where significant interest is expressed."

The decision to close the area to the public, according to Forest officials, had to do with public safety concerns due to helicopter logging in the area and heavy logging truck traffic on the roads.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act describes the monitoring process as including the "diverse stakeholders (including interested citizens and Indian tribes)." It states that the funds to carry out the multiparty monitoring may be derived from operations funds for the project.

The conservation groups state that in the case of the Middle East Fork Project, "the threshold of 'significant interest' has clearly been met." They note that over 11,000 citizens provided comments to the USFS on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. They also note that 20 official HFRA objections were submitted on the project.

Sula District Ranger Tracy Hollingshead, in charge of implementing the Middle East Fork Project, said on Monday that the agency had received three separate requests to establish a multiparty monitoring program. Besides the joint request from the Friends of the Bitterroot and the WildWest Institute, she said requests had also been received from the Bolle Institute at the University of Montana, and from a resident living in the area. Hollingshead said that the agency was willing to consider establishing the process and planned to meet with representatives from the WildWest Institute as soon as possible to discuss the details of their request.

Revised impact fee legislation in the works

By Michael Howell

Because of concerns expressed by local communities seeking to implement impact fees pursuant to recent legislation (Senate Bill 185), Ravalli County Attorney George Corn, Professor John Horwich and the University of Montana Land Use Clinic, have prepared revisions of the law that they hope will be considered by the 2007 Legislature.

"As you know, unprecedented growth in many counties has outstripped the local government's ability to pay for the effects of that growth," state Corn and Horwich in an open letter to local state legislators, whom they hope will sponsor the proposed changes at the next legislature. "Overall, the demands of growth has resulted in a decrease in basic services," they claim and they call the recently enacted impact fee legislation "a laudable effort," but in need of serious revision.

"Local communities have been frustrated by the complexity of the process required to adopt impact fees, the cost of meeting the law's requirements, and the potential for litigation and controversy engendered by ambiguities in the law," they state in the letter.

Senate Bill 185 in its current form, they state, is the product of two different bills. Those bills were Senate Bill 158 introduced by Senator Laible and Senate Bill 185 introduced by Senator Mangan. Both bills were heard by the Senate Subcommittee on Local Government and a compromise bill was agreed upon.

In the two years that have followed the passage of this legislation, many local governments have been reluctant or unable to implement impact fees, however. Corn and Horwich claim that the statute, in its current form, has proven unworkable and cumbersome. The language is often unclear and ambiguous, they claim, leading to difficulty in interpretation. They state that implicit within the statute is the need for each individual governmental entity to conduct an unnecessarily complex and expensive study in order to calculate the fee, which leaves the resulting regulations unduly vulnerable to legal challenge. They also express concern over the makeup of the advisory committee.

In response they offer a draft revision of the law which addresses all these concerns. Corn is quick to note, however, that the revision is not intended to alter the fundamentals of the original legislation. The proposed revisions, he claims, do not change the manner in which the fees are assessed, nor does it change who may assess fees.

"What it does accomplish is a more direct approach to assessing impact fees by eliminating unnecessary burdensome, and duplicative obligations on local governments," wrote Corn and Horwich. "It also eliminates the ambiguous and duplicative descriptions of the relationship between the fee to be charged and the need generated by the new development."

Corn presented his revised draft of the law to local legislators at a County Commissioners' meeting on Monday in the hopes that they would lend their support and sponsor revised legislation on the matter.

Stevensville Community Center Complex to purchase school land

By Michael Howell

Although the actual price and other details have yet to be worked out, the Stevensville School Board passed a resolution of intent to sell a 4.5 acre tract of land to the Stevensville Community Center Complex, Inc. (SCCC), which already owns some adjacent acreage. The SCC has been leasing the 4.5 acres from the school district with a plan for shared use as a parking lot. The plan also called for shared use by the school of the proposed community center facilities.

But that lease and proposed future shared use of the facilities became bones of contention at a series of school board meetings. Board member Ed Cummings raised the concern that the lease was not legal because it was never considered at a public hearing. Others criticized the plan to use the community center facilities for school classrooms, for theater and music classes for example, arguing that it was too far for the students to commute.

Although SCCC member Fred Thomas still believes that the lease was legal and that the initial idea was a good one, he said that the current agreement for the school district to sell the land and SCCC to purchase it outright is also a good resolution of the difficulties posed.

The property was appraised as of July 24, 2006 at a value of $279,000. That appraisal is on file at the school and open to public inspection.

At the December 12, meeting, School Board members voted unanimously to pass a resolution of intent to sell the land. Although the resolution made mention of the sum of $279,000 as a purchase price, that price and other details will be hammered out and adopted at a subsequent meeting.

The resolution also mentioned that the purchase price would be paid within two years, or, if not paid in cash, then it may be paid over a term of 10 years with interest variable quarterly based upon the monthly applicable federal rate for long term notes.

There is also a proposed provision in the contract that the property could not be used for anything other than a community center complex. In the event that the property is not used for community center purposes, it would revert back to the Stevensville School District.

Board member Kirk Thompson said that in his opinion it should be added that in the event the property did revert back to the school that the SCCC should be refunded any money that it had paid for the property. The board indicated general agreement with the notion.

The school board, as part of its decision to sell the land, found that the parcel was not suitable for the school's long range plan for development for projected school needs. It also found that locating a community center complex in close proximity to the school enhances the school's opportunity to use the complex for incidental school activities in cooperation with the center complex. But it would not be suitable to sell or dispose of the property to the general public.

In other business, the Board accepted a letter of resignation from Superintendent Dennis Kimzey. His resignation will take effect at the end of the current school year, June 30, 2007. Dr. Kimzey has served as Stevensville School District Superintendent for the last six years.

The Board also heard a lengthy plea on behalf of the Stevensville Teachers Association by President Stacy Hall, for a change in approach on the part of the Board in relation to the teaching staff. She accused the Board of being negative, intimidating, and demoralizing in its approach.

She began by recalling an era, about nine and a half years ago, when teachers at the school "were chastised, bullied, and harangued by District administrators." She said that some District leaders at the time instructed underlings to look for, write up and document trumped up failings by particular staff members who had crossed the wrong people. She said that some district administrators were put under great duress to establish a pattern of problems for certain staff. As a result, she claims, "bogus" materials were put into some personnel files, intended to establish patterns of unacceptable behavior as grounds for dismissal.

Now, claims Hall, at this Board's meeting in April, "it was made clear that a minority of Trustees was reluctant to take the recommendations of the District's building administrators and superintendent in the rehiring of teachers, both tenured and non-tenured. It was also made clear that certain Trustees had particular, specific teachers in their sights, the stated reason being that people had complained to those Trustees, or those Trustees had 'personal information'."

Hall stated that this was a violation of Board Policy and that for one or more Trustees to advocate "reviewing" an employee concerning complaints that have not been properly appealed to the Board is a violation of the due process rights of those involved and is seen by most teachers "ominous and intimidating."

She states that such interference in personnel matters without engaging in the proper appeals process leaves the teacher having to deal with two or more bosses. For the Board to ignore policy and step into a personnel matter that has not yet been appealed to the Board, is unreasonable, she states, because it puts teachers under the extreme stress of not knowing to whom they answer, of wondering who, exactly, is their direct supervisor.

"To expect an employee to answer directly to two or more different bosses is grounds for disaster," said Hall.

Hall said that teacher morale was very low following the Board's lack of response to the grievance filed by STA at the last meeting. She urged the Board to change course and get back to a more positive approach before some good teachers are lost in the process.

One Board member thanked Hall for her comments.

In other business, Trustees Roger Bardsley, Cathi Cook and Wayne Stanford were appointed to negotiate with the employees on behalf of the Board for the 2007-2008 negotiations.

In other business the Board:

• raised the adult education instructor pay from $17 per hour to $20 per hour. • approved the roadway easement agreement with developer Arlo Ellison concerning the Creekside Meadows Subdivision. • created a Junior High Ski Club activity account. • approved hiring Deborah Cain as Elementary Special Ed Para. • approved the sale of some surplus property.

County Attorney grilled over transition to five-member Commission

By Michael Howell

County Attorney George Corn was ostensibly called before the County Commissioners on Monday to answer the question as to whether the Commissioners needed to call for an election in the case of the upcoming special election of five commissioners required by a successful ballot initiative. Commission Chairman Greg Chilcott said that he called the meeting because the law seemed to state that the governing body, meaning the Board of County Commissioners, must convene within 20 days of the passage of the ballot issue and call for an election.

Corn explained that another statute, enacted later, states clearly that the Local Government Study Commission is responsible for setting the dates of the election and that the dates were set in the Final Study Plan.

Election Administrator Regina Wilson confirmed that the study commission set the dates as April 3 for the primary and June 5 for the general elections and that certificates to that effect were submitted.

Corn told Chilcott that the Attorney General's Opinion that he has referred to in the past addresses the conflicting laws and reconciles them.

"I don't think that an order for elections (by the commissioners) is required given the Attorney General's reconciliation," said Corn.

He said that the AG Opinion stands as law until it is addressed in court by a judge.

Former state senator from Stevensville, Fred Thomas, attending in the audience, was not willing to accept that answer, however, and, after stating that he was part of a group that had been working on this, he began to grill Corn about his interpretation of the law.

Thomas said that his only intent was to see that this be done right. He said the statutes were not clear and "don't flow well."

"A lot of our anguish is over the fact that the law does not say that the Local Government Study Commission can displace sitting commissioners," said Thomas. He said that it might if a new form of government was adopted, but that, in this case, the form of government was retained, just the number of members was increased and the term lengths changed.

Corn held to his position that the Attorney General resolved this issue as well and that unless the Local Government Study Commission explicitly designated that there would be hold-overs, then there are none. He said, in this case, there were no hold-overs designated.

Thomas persisted with his questioning, bringing up a few other Attorney General Opinions and even questioning the determination concerning the nature of the current form of government and whether it subsequently had the right to enact this initiative.

Corn said that the current Commission form of government, that has such authority, was adopted in Ravalli County in 1976 after being voted on by the public.

Thomas went on to question whether the Government Study Commission provided enough notice that voting for a five-member commission would mean that current commissioners would have to run for office again.

Corn stated that he believed the notification was legally sufficient.

Corn told Thomas that what it boils down to is that if he disagrees with the Attorney General's opinion in this case, he can take it up with the court and seek a judicial review. But it must be filed within 60 days of the passage of the ballot.

Commissioner Alan Thompson then raised a question about the term lengths of the new commission. Regardless of whether any sitting commissioners are on the new Board or not, he said, it says that they will draw lots for terms and that those terms will be two or four years. But since this election is a special election in June, if the following elections are going to be in November, as is usual, then the initial terms cannot be two and four.

Corn agreed that it was a problem and deferred to Election Administrator Wilson who said, "My gut instinct is that the first terms determined by lot would be for one-and-a-half and three-and-a-half year terms."

Commissioner Betty Lund then raised another question concerning recently successful candidate for commissioner, Howard Lyons. She said that the plan states that incumbent commissioners will have to run for office again in the election.

"But Howard is not an incumbent. I would be the incumbent. But Howard is replacing me," said Lund. She wondered whether Lyons should have to run again in the special election.

Corn said that it was a question he hadn't considered and that he would have to mull it over.

Chilcott said in the end that it was agreed that no call for elections was required and that Corn would research the question of whether the election applies to Lyons or not.

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