The Ravalli County Commissioners, after giving the minimum public notice required by state law, that is 48 hours notice, held a meeting on January 2, 2008 to consider approval of a County Road and Bridge Department proposal to mine the Lost Horse Quarry. County Commission Chairperson Carlotta Grandstaff announced immediately however, that despite meeting the legal deadline for public notification, "it seemed prudent" to postpone any action on the issue until Friday, January 11, when another meeting has been scheduled to ensure the chance for adequate public participation. The Commission then proceeded to solicit input from County Road and Bridge Department Supervisor David Ohnstad and the public about the project.

Ohnstad reminded the commissioners of his department's original proposal to mine the quarry for road aggregate for the benefit of both the county and the Forest Service, which owns the quarry land. He said that given the quality, quantity and access to the materials, it made sense to pursue the project.

"Since then there was considerable public input," he said.

As a result of that input, in fact, the initial proposal was withdrawn and the department subsequently submitted a completely revised project that involved the county in producing only riprap for its own use while running a crusher and providing the Forest Service with road gravel for needed improvements on forest roads in the area, including Lost Horse Creek Road which serves the Lost Horse Creek lodge and provides access to the forest land beyond.

Ohnstad's original proposal met some stiff public resistance, much of which came from were residents in the area but much from others as well. Several climbers and climbing organizations made strong statements of opposition to any further development of the quarry, which has been, in essence, mothballed for decades.

The initial proposal also drew strong criticism from Commissioner Kathleen Driscoll who presented a detailed critique of the road department's fiscal analysis that indicated significantly higher "real costs." Ohnstad wrote a lengthy memo to the commissioners in reply, defending the expertise of his department and generally disparaging his critics and the criticism of Driscoll.

Although Ohnstad withdrew his initial proposal following this criticism, he still defended it as "economically and environmentally sound." Nonetheless he has changed his proposal, "after recognizing the concerns of the residents," and revised the project considerably.

The new proposal would provide the County with a supply of armor rock used for riprap and supply the USFS with gravel to be used for upgrading forest roads in the area. It would involve operating a crusher, to produce the gravel. The plan calls for a five-year production period with an additional five-year period for extracting the stockpiled resources. It amounts to a total of 25,000 to 35,000 cubic yards of riprap for the county and 35,000 cubic yards of gravel for the Forest Service, over the 10-year period.

Ohnstad said that the revised project would not increase the truck traffic over the original proposal and would provide "considerable savings while producing nominal impacts."

He said that the Forest Service has jurisdiction over the site and a process to ensure public involvement. He said that the revised project addressed all the serious and credible public concerns.

Commissioner Driscoll noted that recent research showed that Missoula County had only used an average of 90 cubic yards of riprap material over the last five years. She said Lake County used about 100 cubic yards per year and Flathead used 200 cubic yards per year. She wondered why Ravalli county needed 2,500 cubic yards per year.

Ohnstad responded by saying that the 2,500 cubic yard per year projection was reasonable and based upon the estimates of very experienced personnel.

Commissioner Jim Rokosch said that he would need to see a needs assessment as well before he could adequately evaluate the proposal.

Forest Service Ranger Mike Oliver, asked to comment, said that he felt like the public concerns had been mitigated and that the Forest Service would benefit from the proposal. But he said that the Forest Service would go forward with its projects whether or not the county went forward with its proposal.

"We didn't have plans to go in there," said Oliver, "but we will still have access to it and may use it."

Commissioner Greg Chilcott said that the project would benefit the Forest Service work around Twin Lakes and Lost Horse.

Members of the public expressed safety concerns over the use of the road for a mining operation. Some objected primarily to the crushing operation. Several questioned the Road Department's fiscal analysis and needs assessment. Pat Tucker provided information documenting other counties' use of riprap and questioned the true need for so much armor rock. She said that safety concerns could easily lead to a more expensive project. She was extremely critical of the Road Department's "mathematical errors and inconsistencies." She also doubted that the county's crusher could operate at the production level as claimed in the proposal. She also protested Ohnstad's remarks made in a recent memo to the commissioners.

In his memo Ohnstad accused his critics of "pursuing a dishonest and malicious course of conduct, and it is shameful that these few would attempt to compromise the positive and professional relationship between the Road and Bridge Department and the Board of County Commissioners in a desperate attempt to validate their self interests and to distract attention from their selfish motives."

He said that the few opponents had bombarded the commissioners with false concerns in order to conceal their true motives which are simply to stop any increased public use that would be created by road improvements in the area.

Tucker said that the accusations were false and insulting.

"I object to having my own 'hidden motivations' told to me by the County Road supervisor," said Tucker.

Local resident Mark Behrman noted that the Road Supervisor's numbers were always changing.

"All your numbers float all the time. You offer no concrete numbers. You just attack those who question you," said Behrman.

Robert Johnstone, owner of the Lost Horse Creek Lodge, spoke in favor of the project. He said that it was the goal of the state to sponsor such partnerships between local and state governments to improve transportation needs. He said that the state needs to improve its tourist industry.

Senator Jim Shockley from Victor also spoke in favor of the project, saying that in this case it was a good mutual benefit for the county and the federal government and that local residents that would be inconvenienced needed to bite the bullet for the sake of the public good.

Stewart Brandborg of Bitterrooters for Planning said that the public had spoken long and loudly about the negative impacts of such a development of the Lost Horse Quarry and that the commissioners should heed the public input for a change.

The commissioners will take further input and make some decision about the project at a meeting scheduled for Friday, January 11 at 9 a.m.

A clearer picture on the costs of development

By Greg Lemon

In terms of operating costs, new residential development in Ravalli County appears to be paying its way, according to a new fiscal impact analysis model presented to county commissioners Monday morning.

"From my perspective, the operating position of the county is pretty good," said Dennis Stranger, who was hired by the county to perform the analysis. "In my mind it's about a break even."

The county contracted with Stranger's company, Management and Planning Research, in late August to develop the model. The commissioners wanted to begin to get some idea of how much new residential development is impacting county services. Stranger is also the city planner for Hamilton.

In the analysis model, Stranger looked only at the operating costs of the county, as opposed to capital improvement costs. Operating costs were essentially defined as ongoing expenditures. Capital improvement costs are one-time payments for things like buildings, roads and other infrastructure.

Stranger's fiscal impact analysis model will enable the county to determine the operating costs associated with future development.

Operating costs are derived from the difference between income generated by new tax revenue on property and homes and the cost of providing services for those homes.

In constructing his model, Stranger analyzed the county's budget for fiscal year 2007/2008 and deducted all capital costs.

Once the budget was sifted through, he then talked to department heads and elected county officials and asked them what percent of their new workload was devoted to new growth. He concluded that 90 percent of the new work was involved in dealing with new growth. Of that 90 percent, Stranger was told that about 95 percent was for residential growth.

To analyze the operating costs – per household – for the county, Stranger used census data from 2000 and an estimated increase of 470 households to determine there are currently 16,500 households in the county.

Stranger then determined the average amount each county department spends on operational costs per household. These figures were then plugged into his model.

To test the model, Stranger used a hypothetical 75-lot subdivision that had a mix of lot sizes varying between two-acres and three-acres and larger. Revenues from the subdivision were estimated based on hypothetical property values and the associated property taxes.

When plugged into the model and the revenues were weighed against operational costs, the hypothetical subdivision would give the county about $18,000 in surplus revenues after all 75 homes were built, which Stranger estimated would take seven years.

Given the size of the county's budget, Stranger considered the small revenue amount a break-even.

During the presentation, commissioner Jim Rokosch wanted more explanation of why certain capital costs weren't considered.

"What I'm seeing frankly, is a lot of costs missing," Rokosch told Stranger.

Stranger explained that in this fiscal impact analysis model it was important to remove things that would be defined as capital improvement costs. If you didn't exclude them, the model wouldn't accurately enumerate operating costs, he said.

To actually analyze capital improvement costs, the county would have to do a capital improvements plan, Stranger said.

"The first thing you need to do is get a good handle on your operating costs," Stranger told the commissioners. "The received wisdom is that residential growth is going to bankrupt the county."

But what he found was, in terms of operating costs, that is not the case.

For the county to effectively use his model, they would need to get estimated property and home values from developers when they present a subdivision. With these numbers, the county could determine the estimated operating cost of any subdivision, Stranger said.

Essentially, all the numbers in his model could be adjusted to represent future taxes, household numbers, and property values in the county. The only thing that would significantly alter the model is if the state changed its tax structure, he said.

Stranger's model finally gives the county a real tool to analyze at least part of the effect subdivisions are having on the county's budget, commissioner Greg Chilcott said in an interview after the meeting.

"There's always been this long-term discussion about how much growth costs the county taxpayer," Chilcott said. "There's been a lot of rumors and a lot of assumptions and assertions that at least today were cleared up, to a degree, through an independent analysis."

"It's a wash," he went on to say. "The taxes we collect are offsetting the new expenses, operationally, for the new development. I was a little surprised by that."

However, the capital improvement costs for new development is still a big unknown. That will be another discussion and possibly another analysis, Chilcott said.

Some departments in the county have a capital improvements plan, but the county doesn't have a comprehensive plan, he said. To get a complete picture of what new development costs the county, there needs to be a capital improvements plan, which is also required by the state before the county can institute impact fees on new development, Stranger said.

Hamilton offers Shook $5,000 for option to purchase

By Michael Howell

The Hamilton City Council made a decision at a special meeting held on the last day of the year, December 31, 2007, to offer Garry Shook and Plumtree Properties $5,000 for an option to purchase about 66 acres of land south of town. The city council is eyeing the land as potential parkland along the river as well as potential building sites for administration, fire or police services. If Shook should accept the offer, it would give the city 90 days to do "due diligence" with respect to investigating the possibility of purchasing the property. It would give the city the right of first refusal on any other offers presented in the meantime. If the right of first refusal was not exercised, the city would get the $5,000 option to purchase cost returned. If anything else goes awry with the deal, however, the city eats the $5,000 loss which is otherwise non-refundable.

According to City Planner Dennis Stranger, who presented the possibility of an option to purchase to the council at a previous meeting on December 19, the "due diligence" required in this case would mean getting property appraisals, land title research and environmental surveys as well as examining the city's debt capacity. At the December 31 meeting, he estimated the associated cost of performing "due diligence" to be between $12,000 and $19,000.

Stranger claimed to be in constant contact with Shook over the issue but did not know whether Shook would accept the offer or not.

Councilor DeAnne Harbaugh asked if it was not just an "exercise in futility" for the council to approve the option, since the mayor was likely not to execute it.

Stranger said that he felt, from his talks with the mayor, that it would not be a futile effort.

Councilor Robert Sutherland questioned the offer. According to Sutherland's reasoning, Shook had already expressed a sense of the option's value that made Stranger's proposal look like a "lowball offer." He complained that it was the mayor's agenda to scuttle this deal. He said that he had talked to the mayor and that she told him that "this deal stinks." He said that she promised to veto it, if passed.

Stranger denied that the mayor had an agenda and said that she had told him she would do whatever the council decided with respect to the offer. He did say that one of the mayor's concerns was that the potential purchase go through the public process and get thorough public review.

According to Stranger, Shook mentioned during negotiations "this is kind of backwards." He said that Shook said a city should have a plan for how it wants to expand, then go out and look for land that corresponds to its plan, and pick one. Stranger said that the city was not in that position yet, so it made sense to spend a reasonable amount of money to buy the time to examine the deal and see if, indeed, it was a good deal or not. That, of course, would involve a lot of "due diligence."

Councilors Bob Scott and Jerry Steele were divided over the "exercise in futility" question.

Scott argued that the mayor must execute any contract that the City Council authorizes.

Steele countered that only the mayor has the power to sign contracts and that the law does not give the council the power to force the mayor to do it.

Scott shot back that the mayor did not have authority to veto Council decisions.

Councilor Harbaugh said that in the past the mayor has ignored the council's directives.

Councilor Mike LaSalle pointed to the fact that the mayor had not attended three of the last five council meetings. He called her absence from the meeting the "unexplained white elephant" in the situation and said, "She should have been here to speak."

Steele said that he did not believe there was any hidden agenda on anybody's part. He said that $5,000 for 90 days to take a good hard look at the proposal was not outrageous.

"We have a good opportunity here," he said, "and we need to get the public involved." He said that the option to purchase would give the city the chance it needs to get the information required to make an informed decision.

Harbaugh agreed, saying, "This needs to be checked out."

Councilor Nancy Joy Hendrickson agreed that the option was worth pursuing.

The vote to offer Shook $5,000 for the option was approved unanimously.

The Council then unanimously approved setting a date for a public "informational" meeting on January 17, at 7 p.m. to take public comment concerning the possibility of purchasing the Shook property. It could require subsequent meetings as more information becomes available, such as property appraisal reports, etc.

Group seeks grant to aid in planning for highway corridor

By Michael Howell

The Ravalli County Commissioners agreed last week to join with the City of Hamilton, the Stevensville Main Street Association and the Bitterroot Good Neighbors Coalition in offering letters of support to the Bitter Root Cultural Heritage Trust (BRCHT) in its effort to secure grant funds to support a workshop aimed at facilitating planning along the Highway 93 corridor. BRCHT is applying to the National Endowment for the Arts for a $22,000 grant to be used to help sponsor a Your Town Workshop in the valley as part of the Phase II efforts at countywide zoning. Although the proposal is only preliminary in form, the money will be used generally to pay for a workshop by professionals geared towards the issues that surround development within the transportation corridor of Highway 93.

The proposal states that communities in the valley are struggling to retain their identity, social fabric, and agricultural landscape and lifestyle during an intense period of growth and immigration.

"Ravalli County," states the proposal, "like many counties in the Intermountain West, is behind the power curve in terms of providing effective mechanisms for absorbing growth, like zoning and planning, and so a fast growth currently presents big challenges. In particular economic growth is not keeping up with population growth."

Both Commissioner Greg Chilcott and Alan Thompson reiterated their concerns about involving the county in any activity that might take away from planning efforts aimed at realizing Pahse I of the Countywide Zoning effort now under way.

Kristine Komar, speaking for BRCHT, told the commissioners that the kind of workshop planned would coincide with those efforts and that plans for the workshop would not mature until the transition time between Phase I and Phase II of the Zoning efforts. The commissioners have already explicitly placed work on Phase I zoning efforts as having priority over any Phase II or secondary zoning concerns such as streamside setbacks and the Highway 93 corridor. But the workshop would come at the tail end of those efforts and help facilitate the transition to Phase II issues, she said.

Preliminary proposed teachers at the workshop include Thomas McNab, an adjunct professor in the school of architecture at Montana State University; Ralph Johnson, Professor, MSU School of Architecture; William Pond, Assistant Professor, MSU School of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology; Christopher Overdorf, of Jones and Jones Architects and Landscape Architects, Seattle; Chere Jiusto, executive director of the Montana Preservation Alliance; Dwayne Kailey, MDOT; Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates; and Michelle Byran-Mudd, Director, Land Use Law Clinic at the UM School of Law.

The commissioners unanimously approved writing a letter of support for the grant aspplication.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2007 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney