By Michael Howell
The Stevensville Parks and Recreation Board, on Monday January 9, decided to recommend to the town council that it place the proposed land swap at the Stevensville River Park on a special election ballot for a public vote. The motion was approved on a four to two vote with Vicki Motley and Tonya Eckert casting the dissenting votes.
The land swap proposal was forged in a series of meetings between town officials, Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials and Roy Capp, owner of the Fort Owen Ranch, over a period of months. State Senator Fred Thomas served as a facilitator for the discussions. Details of the plan were made public at a tour of the site and subsequent discussion held at Town Hall on December 10, 2016. The tour and meeting were sponsored by FWP and Senator Thomas.
The Capps have offered to exchange about three and a half acres of land along the Stevensville Cut-off Road and a little over an acre in town along the Eastside Highway for eight and a half acres of the Town’s park land at the north end of River Park. If the trade goes through, FWP has agreed to construct a parking lot and install a bathroom and parking on the three acres for a fishing access site. The agency would also maintain the site.
The proposal has been controversial and drew large attendance at the Park Board meetings.
At the January 9 meeting, Stevensville Mayor Jim Crews read a letter from Town attorney Brian West stating that, in his opinion, the town council has the authority to sell or trade the land by a two-thirds majority vote. But if the land was dedicated to some purpose, for instance as park land, then the issue would have to be placed on the ballot and put up for a majority vote of the citizens of the town. The attorney stated that there was no evidence in the two documents submitted that the land had any encumbrances that would preclude the town council from making the decision.
Crews went on to state that he had investigated the town’s records including the council minutes and could find no record that the land had ever been dedicated as a park. He said that he intended to look into newspaper records but had not yet had the chance (for some of those results, see the accompanying article titled “Is it a park?”) There were records in the minutes concerning the efforts to sell the property in 1990 and records of a grant from the Forest Service used to pay for improvements at the property. There was also a record of hiring Paul Snyder to manage the implementation of the planned improvements. Crews was also able to locate Snyder who still lives in the area.
Snyder recalled working with Billie Swartz and Bill Perrin on the project about 22 years ago. He said that they worked from the existing Stevensville Community Plan, which included a bike path, a riverside park and a re-furbished bridge at the slough that would accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. He recalled the death of young Will Wyatt who was hit by a motorist while riding his bicycle near the bridge. Snyder said he was hired to manage the grant and build a park and Loyd Moran did the gravel work.
“We had an easement and got the necessary permits and put in a road, constructed a parking lot, built a handicapped accessible restroom, installed benches along the trail, and covered the dump site with a layer of clay,” said Snyder. He said when the park, trail and bridge were all finished, a ribbon cutting celebration was held and he remembered that the Regional Forester, state and town officials were present.
Rory Zarling, FWP Fishing Access Site Manager for Western Montana, gave a report about the meeting that he and two members of the Park Board, Tonya Eckert and Vicki Motley, had with the Capps concerning several of the alternatives that had emerged in the public discussion. He said that the two lists he was presenting were the basic minutes of that meeting. He said they were put in writing and agreed upon by all parties; the first being a list of eight “options” that were composed based on previous public comment; the second being a 17-item list of “talking points” that emerged during the discussion.
The “options” discussed included the one under consideration that the Capps offered. The second option was an even trade acre for acre. The third involved re-configuring the acreage so that the town would not lose river frontage. It was noted that the option offered by the Capps did not involve any loss in total acreage of river frontage, it just moved the town’s frontage from the north end to the south end of the property.
An easement along the river all the way to the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge was brought up. It was noted that the Capps were trying to decrease exposure to potential trespassing and had no intention of granting any more easements. The Capps were not interested in donating the land because the write-off would be minimal and of no significant value to them.
Developing a boat launch across the river on the west bank was discussed but Zarling said the piece is too small and too steep for a boat launch.
Some of the public have mentioned a prescriptive easement at the current boat launch, but FWP attorneys are of the opinion that there is no prescriptive easement at the site.
Stevensville resident Loey Knapp had previously offered to purchase the 3.6 acres for the appraised value, approximately $20,000. The Bitterroot Land Trust and Dale Burk also have discussed possible purchases that could then be gifted to the town or FWP.
According to Zarling, the Capps made it clear that they are not interested in selling any of their land, making all the above “options” moot. Further, he said, the Capps intend to close the fishing access site to the public if the trade does not go through.
Among the “talking points” from the meeting with the Capps:
• The fact that it is not an even trade and the Capps end up with more acreage is because the Capps need some economic “purpose.”
• They Capps would like to rid themselves of the liability associated with the fishing access site.
• The Capps believe that the new property lines would be easier to monitor for trespassing.
• The property being traded is not developable.
• The trade would allow the Capps to add a meaningful number of cows and make more money, over time, than they would on the one-time trade.
• The value of the 1.26 acres along the roadside in town is far more valuable to the town than it is for the Capps and could be used as part of a bike path.
• The overuse of the access site, along with river bank erosion, is threatening the dump site.
• FWP would fix the bank degradation, put in sanitation, signing, parking, maintenance, and law enforcement along with $150,000 to $250,000 in parking and other improvements.
• It could resolve the litigation related to the access road at the Town’s sewer plant.
• The town doesn’t lose much in the deal.
• The town doesn’t get as many acres, but the ones it gets are more valuable.
• There will be no loss of habitat because the Capps will not be building.
• If the trade does not go through the Capps will barricade the fishing access site.
• It will cost $1,200 to hold a special election and take about 100 days to occur.
• A survey needs to be done to determine the actual acreage.
An outfitter who uses the boat launch spoke about the economic impact to his business if the site is shut down. He called it “catastrophic.” He said the benefits to the town are a $250,000 investment by FWP in a site that will boost the town’s economy.
During the extensive public comment, Sarah Grove said, “I don’t believe it’s fishermen against bird watchers and dog walkers… I think that the fact that the Capps weren’t able to consider any of the viable options that were presented amounts to extortion.” She said she believes it should be an even acre for acre trade.
Stevensviille resident and fishing outfitter Eddie Olwell said, “Excuse the French, but I think this is a [bad] deal. If this was such a great deal then the Capps wouldn’t be holding a gun to the fishermen’s heads and saying ‘we are going to close your site.’ They are playing the town’s people against the fishermen.”
He went on to say that his business couldn’t afford the hit if the site was closed for very long.
“I reluctantly say we should take the deal,” said Olwell. “That’s where I stand, but I’m very sorry for the people of Stevensville.”
Asked about the time frame for the funding FWP is counting on, Zarling said that they would probably need to have an answer within a couple of months.
Desera Towle, a former town council member, said, “It is the town of Stevensville that owns that property and they should have a vote.” She said she would be placing an ad in the newspaper asking Stevensville residents who want to have a public vote on the issue to sign the ad and send it to the Town. She also urged them to talk to their Council representatives.
Paul Snyder, who managed the installation of the park 22 years ago, asked Zarling whether, it this deal did not go through, FWP could participate with the town and build an alternate boat launch site. Zarling said they could and do, on both government and privately owned sites. He said the agency did look at the potential of a site on the north end of the old dump on the town’s property but getting permits would be problematic. Snyder said that they got permits for the road and other improvements at the time of construction. He thought it might be even easier for FWP. Zarling said he did not consider the development of a boat launch at that spot viable for a number of reasons.
Asked if he thought it was viable to increase parking at the town’s current parking area, Zarling said he wasn’t sure how many parking spaces were there, but it was considerably less than what was being planned in the Capp exchange.
Park Board members James Marble and Ed Sutherlin both said that they believed it should go to a public vote and Sutherlin made the motion to recommend to the Town Council that they set a special election and put it on the ballot.
Sutherlin said it was the “this way or no way” part of the deal that makes it necessary in his mind to put it to the public vote.
“I think it’s a great idea, but it’s got to go to public vote,” said Sutherlin.
Zarling said that he was afraid that if it went to a vote that it would be “really, really hard to relay what everyone in this room has heard over the last year or two. How do you put that on a ballot and convey all the issues involved? To me you would want to have a more educated public before you vote.”
The Park Board members then voted on the motion to make a recommendation to the Town Council that it hold a special election and put the proposed land swap on the ballot. The motion was approved on a 4 to 2 vote, with Vicki Motley and Tonya Eckert casting the dissenting votes. Motley said that she would prefer to see the Board recommend approval of the trade and let the council decide on the process.
At the January 12 council meeting, the Town Council accepted the submission of the Park Board’s recommendation and took it under advisement.
In the public comment, outfitter Shaun O’Brian said the town should be careful because if the easement to the property was for a dump and they are using it for a park, they may lose it. He also complained that if it went to a vote only the residents of Stevensville would have a voice and none of the non-resident users like himself will get to vote, even though the outcome will affect them.
Jeff Motley gave several reasons to approve the deal. It would legalize the use of the boat launch, provide parking near the launch area, provide a new restroom, and more, all for the cost of a few acres of river bottom.
“The town wins by gaining access to the river at no cost,” said Motley. “The community wins by gaining the same access and the economic benefit that comes from the access. The state of Montana wins by maintaining access,” and contributing to the multi-million dollar revenue generated by fishing.
Park Board Chair Tonya Eckert said, “This is bigger than a town vote or the town’s people. So, a couple of things, talking to the Capps, it’s a bigger thing than just the boat launch. This will right a lot of issues with the Town of Stevensville. If this goes to a public vote, I’d like everyone to know the details, every single question. I have the minutes,” and she handed over the paperwork.
Park Board member Vicki Motley also spoke, saying she would like to ask that it not go to a public vote. She said the Park Board had not found any evidence that it was designated as a park. She said, “If the property was designated as a park when they took ownership, I doubt that they could have used it as a dump.” She also said that putting it to a vote might delay things too long to meet FWP funding deadlines. She said the public has had ample time to give their input and it would best be decided by the Council. She said in terms of the monetary value of the acreage that the town would come out ahead because the 1.26 acre piece in town by the roadside was estimated at $50,000 by MDOT. The town also gains from the $250,000 investment by FWP.
Margaret Gorski said she thought the process that was being used suffered from a lack of documentation that would lay out the facts and analyze the issues. She said that by leaving the public out of all the preliminary discussion and development of the deal they were “putting the cart before the horse.”
Bill Perrin, a former council member, said that the important thing to him was the process.
“I think it should go to a vote of the public,” he said. “I don’t want anybody saying afterward that they didn’t have a voice.”
The recommendation of the Park Board was taken under advisement. The next step will be to place the issue on the next council agenda for Thursday, January 26.