by Michael Howell
The Ravalli County Board of Health makes decisions on a regular basis that can have very significant impacts on people’s lives. Given the complexity of the many laws and other agencies involved, the Board has always been extremely cautious in taking enforcement actions. They always work hard, with a lot of back and forth, to reach some sort of resolution other than turning to the courts for enforced solutions. But the Board only meets once a month and, as a result, difficult issues can sometimes go on for years. There are currently a couple of ongoing cases that have been moving at a glacial pace through the system.
There is the very sticky issue, for instance, surrounding the number of recreational vehicles parked at the Big Sky Christian Center in Hamilton. The issue first came to the Board’s attention in early 2023 and communications have bounced back and forth between the Board and Pastor Harris Himes, including a long detour involving the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), since that time. It was only this month that the Board finally moved to ask the Ravalli County Attorney to take some enforcement action.
The main issues facing the Board of Health have been whether the large number of RVs parked on the property constitute a health hazard and whether the existing septic systems are adequate and properly functioning to service the current uses. The long detour to DEQ involved the question raised by the Board as to whether allowing the many RVs to park at the homeless shelter constituted a campground or not. Campgrounds are regulated by the state and have their own set of restrictions concerning sanitation issues. The Board’s efforts to come to some resolution over its concerns with the septic permits related to the buildings at the homeless shelter were placed on hold while the state considered whether or not the RVs parked on the property constituted an unpermitted campground.
It took DEQ almost a year to respond to the County’s concerns and a reply was finally sent to Himes on June 11, 2024, in which DEQ informed Himes that they did not find any evidence that there was a campground open to the public. Himes considered the department’s decision should be taken as a “red light” and put an end to his problems with the Health Board. But the Board of Health saw it as putting the ball back in their court and they still had issues about the status and condition of the permitted and unpermitted septic systems serving the shelter that needed to be resolved. They gave him a deadline for providing information about the septic systems. Himes’ response was to give the Board a list of his own demands for information from the Board, accusing them of persecution and discrimination against his church.
“As I’ve repeated many times, DEQ gave you the red light. Stop! But you continue to run it in all your attacks since then. You continue to ‘review this facility’. All of your subsequent attacks- just like your attack on us under the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act – should not be complied with on that basis alone,” he wrote in his January 2025 response.
The Board did not consider Himes’ response sufficient to answer its concerns and issued an Order of Compliance to provide the requested information about his septic systems by the end of April.
In his response submitted on April 29, 2025, Himes once again dismisses the Board’s concerns that the shelter, including all the RVs, constitute a public health hazard.
“These vicious assaults are heartless – and soulless,” he wrote. “You rip the guts out of our ministry to these people and eviscerate our freedom of expression.”
He disputes the Board’s claim that the RVs constitute a “new” use or a “change of use” requiring a new permit.
“Just as people have come and gone at our shelter, so have RVs and trailers come and gone on this property when people needed help. RVs and trailers have been here before and have used the shelter building’s facilities (“get their water from the shelter, use our cooking and shower facilities, as well as laundry”) -just as they are doing now. That’s ‘the intended use’ of this parcel from the physical use perspective which hasn’t changed. There is nothing ‘new’ occurring. From the spiritual perspective, the use is determined by God’s will – not by the number of people, RVs, and trailers – and not by your edict. God’s intended use of our property hasn’t changed either. There is no ‘change of use’ – either in ministry or in physical use for those in RVs and trailers, past or present,” wrote Himes.
Once again, he gives the Board his own list of demands for information, asking them to prove that they are not discriminating against his ministry.
“If you are honest in your assertion, ‘we hope to work cooperatively with you,’ then you will suspend your deadline of April 30, 2025 and provide the requested responses,” wrote Himes.
“Once we have your answers, as I’ve said before, then we can evaluate whether we can comply – consistent with God’s will – or not. If you refuse to prove that you have neither persecuted nor discriminated against us – you prove instead your hypocrisy, ‘we hope to work cooperatively with you’ – then we have our answer – and you have yours: we cannot comply under these circumstances for the reasons we’ve given you. God’s will be done,” he wrote.
According to Commissioner Jeff Burrows who chairs the Board of Health, Himes did not attend or send any representative to the latest Board meeting and his most recent correspondence, like his previous correspondence, did not answer the Board’s concerns. So they decided to forward the issue to the County Attorney’s office for a legal proceeding after determining that Himes had not adequately responded to the Compliance Order demanding that he either provide the requested information about the septic systems or remove the RVs from the property.
Himes did attach several letters of support from other churches in the community beseeching the County to drop the issue and continue to allow Himes to perform what they consider an essential service to the public that benefits everyone involved including the county government who would have to deal with the homeless if they are pushed out onto the streets or other public properties.
A District Court judge will now be the final arbiter in the dispute.
“It’s slow going on the Board of Health stuff,” said Burrows. “Because we only meet once a month it takes so long for things to move along.”
Another example of a longstanding issue before the Board that may be approaching resolution dates back to 2019. On April 30, 2025, the County received a letter from an attorney representing property owner Mark Fournier that begins, “Since 2019, as described in greater detail below, Mark has experienced multiple incidents of obstruction and unwarranted actions by county employees regarding the development and use of the Property, some of which have required Commissioner intervention to resolve, including the recent incident in which county employees attempted to stop the current tenant’s lawful use of the Property. Despite this appropriate intervention, in each instance, county employees have circled back and continued their unwarranted scrutiny of the property.”
According to Fournier’s attorney Dustin Chouinard, County employee Kelly Arnold visited the property to perform an inspection in the summer of 2019 and, “Ms. Arnold’s communications regarding my clients and the property were troubling and inappropriate from the start.” He claims Arnold was “inexplicably critical of my clients’ plans for the property” and “immediately inserted her personal views into the equation.” He claims that Arnold eventually “insisted” that his client “would have to pay the neighbor to the north of the property for an easement before she would approve the septic system. The contractor offered her an alternative solution, which Ms. Arnold rejected. She stated the only option was to pay the neighbor for an easement. Ms. Arnold’s representations were false and without legal basis, and the property owner to the north of the Property was actually Ms. Arnold’s father.”
According to his attorney, Fournier took his concerns to her supervisor, John Palacio, head of the county’s Environmental Health Department, but Palacio “summarily dismissed” his concerns, although he eventually issued a permit without requiring his client to purchase an easement.
However, this didn’t put an end to things. Fournier got a call from Palacio in 2022 stating that he had received a complaint alleging that the property was being put to “commercial use” for hosting a high school prom, a memorial for a teacher who passed away, and hosting the Corvallis FFA annual banquet, and required a new permit.
Fournier was required to re-write his existing permit, which he did. But when the new application was submitted the site plan was not approved, ostensibly because it was changed by Arnold and that a “pressure dosing” system was required “due to coarse soil.” Claiming it was not justified, but feeling under pressure, Fournier agreed to install the system at considerable cost.
Instead of resolving the matter, however, the attorney asserts that Fournier was required to do another re-write of the permit based on “false allegations” and demanding that Fournier submit a written statement to the effect of “the building will not be used for commercial purposes and will not be advertised for commercial use” and “furthermore, he demanded [my client] acknowledge in writing that if the property was used for private gatherings, use of portable toilets would be required.”
Although this permit was finally issued it contained a note on the back saying that an alteration permit would be required since the two structures sharing the permit were not hooked up at the same time. Instead, it is claimed that Palacio again insisted on a written statement that the property would not be used for commercial use and portable toilets would be used for private functions. When Fournier declined to do that Palacio sent written notice to Fournier that his application for an alteration permit was denied and indicating he would be fined $1,000.
Fournier claims that this requirement, too, was based on the false allegations submitted by Arnold after trespassing on his property in a foiled attempt to substantiate her false claims. At this point Commissioner Burrows intervened and after that, the attorney claims, “the unlawful pursuit of a fine was dropped and the alteration permit was issued without unlawful conditions.”
But this was not the end of it all, according to Fournier’s attorney. He states that in February 2025, Fournier leased the property with an option to buy to Bear Creek Wellness Center.
“As soon as Mark took steps to vacate the property and Bear Creek Wellness Center began to lawfully modify and improving the property to suit its needs, the harassment campaign resumed,” writes Chouinard. “Ms. Arnold began rallying neighbors against the Property. On information and belief, Ms. Arnold, or another county employee, or both contacted the State Building Inspector, Shawn Rupp, and alleged the structures on the property were not up to code.”
This too, according to Chouinard, turned out to be false claims but a hold was placed on Bear Creek Wellness Center’s license. Palacio followed up with an email on April 14, 2025, again falsely claiming the proposed use on the property is for “commercial use” and didn’t conform to the DEQ prior approval. Palacio claimed another “re-write” was necessary,” wrote Chouinard.
“Clearly, the harassment campaign had resumed,” states Chouinard in his letter to the county. “Both Mark and Bear Creek Wellness Center presented the DPHHS inspector with Mont. Code Ann. §76-2-412. Counsel for DPHHS reviewed the situation and confirmed that because Bear Creek Wellness Center’s planned a residential treatment facility, its intended use of the property was expressly allowed under the black letter of the law.”
But when this information was presented to Palacio and Burrows, Chouinard claims, Bear Creek Wellness Center received word from Palacio that a ‘re-write’ might not be necessary, but demanding more information to purportedly re-evaluate the septic systems.
Chouinard states, “Again, my client had hoped your intervention would put a stop to county employees’ unlawful actions towards the property. My client has already been damaged by the actions of county employees. Unfortunately, under the circumstances, it seems clear that the campaign of harassment will not stop and unless his claims are addressed, he will have no alternative but to bring a lawsuit to do so.”
Chouinard alleges a violation of his client’s constitutional rights, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, actual malice, and asks for injunctive relief.
Commissioner Burrows said, “I have no idea what he wants as far as a remedy goes,” and said that he had put in a request to Environmental Health for its answers to all the allegations and hoped to have a “sit down” with Fournier and his attorney “to see whatever remedies he is seeking.”
“It almost seemed to me that he said, ‘if I can just get my permit and be left alone, I’ll just go away,’” said Burrows. “As far as I’m concerned, I think this thing should be going away because I think they are going to be permitted out there and I think everything should be good. I think there was some miscommunication on things.”
As of yet, no meeting has been scheduled.Lingering Board of Health issues approaching resolution?