At a special board meeting on March 18, the Corvallis School Board voted unanimously to place a bond issue before the voters in the June 3 primary election. The bond issue, in the amount of $23 million, would provide for the construction, expansion and renovation of school facilities.

The building proposal is the result of several years of facility planning undertaken by school trustees, administration, staff and community members to come up with solutions to overcrowding and other facility deficiencies and to plan for continued growth in enrollment. A three-day workshop in November with CTA Architects developed the basic outlines of the plan, which was further refined at a two-day workshop in February.

Corvallis students are currently educated in three facilities, all three of which are at or beyond capacity.

Under the proposed plan, crowding at the K-4 Corvallis Primary School – where 5 temporary modular classrooms will be in use by the fall of 2008 – would be relieved by that facility becoming a K-2 school. Corvallis Primary School occupies four buildings, dating from 1940, 1985, 1992, and 1997.

An elementary school for grades 3-5 would occupy what are now the two main high school buildings. These buildings are physically connected and date from 1931 and 1997. Internal renovations would be made to classrooms and the 1940’s boiler and heating system serving the building would be replaced. Grades 3-5 would use the original gym located in the 1931 portion of the facility.

Corvallis Middle School (currently housing grades 5-8) would remain in its present location to become a 6-8 middle school. Four new classrooms would accommodate growth. The middle school would use the current high school gym and attached music, industrial arts and other classrooms in that building as needed.

A new high school facility would be constructed to the south and west of the new community-built football field and track east of the Eastside Highway. The proposed high school would be designed to accommodate 700 students with space for further expansion in the future. The L-shaped building would include basic classrooms, modern science rooms, industrial arts facilities, art and music rooms, a large commons for student lunch and gatherings, a 400-500 seat auditorium, and a gym with seating for 1,500. Student staff and visitor parking and designated bus lanes are part of the project.

The existing district lunchroom would be remodeled and expanded into the western portion of the building to serve grade 3-8.

The proposed new construction and renovations are designed to address current crowding and to enable the district to accommodate growth in enrollment.

Also in the levy proposal is the proposed purchase, if the land becomes available, of 14 acres to the north of the middle school, west of the Ravalli County Electric Co-op buildings. Five and a half acres are currently leased by the district and have been used by the school for 30 years. Eight and a half additional acres will replace fields displaced by construction and leave room for future expansion.

In addition to mailings and information posted on its website, the district will host open houses and school tours and plans to speak to all interested school and community groups. For more information contact Wilbur Nisly, Corvallis School Board spokesman, 961-4302 or Daniel Sybrant, Corvallis School Superintendent, 961-4211.

Hamilton School District proposes $300,000 operational levy

Hamilton School District Superintendent Duby Santee said that the school was down about 27 students from a total enrollment of 1,630 last year to 1,603 this year, which means less funding from the state. Santee said that most of the state funding came earmarked for certain uses, leaving only a portion for the schools operating procedures and programs.

“Expenses have also increased,” said Santee. “There has been a 20 percent increase in utility costs. The cost of licenses for software is up 5 percent.” He said that the legislative increase of one half percent was not enough.

“We need to ask the community to support the programs we have in place,” said Santee.

So the school board is proposing a $300,000 operational levy that would increase the general fund by three and a half percent. That would amount to about a $28.40 increase in annual taxes on a home with a taxable value of $100,000.

“It’s a hard time to be asking people for money with the economy the way it is,” said Santee, “and we wouldn’t be doing it if we didn’t have to.” He said that if it doesn’t pass the school will survive, but cuts would have to made in employees and in programs.

Two seats on the board are also open in the coming election on May 6, belonging to Dan Moerkerke and Jim Shay. Santee said that Shay had filed for his seat, but Moerkerke had not yet filed. The filing deadline is March 27.

Countywide zoning: what’s coming next

By Greg Lemon

If the Ravalli County countywide zoning process were a race, the first leg – with all its controversy and drama – would be over.

However, the next leg of the race is starting soon.

Since last fall, the county has created community planning committees in each of the seven school districts. These CPCs have worked on everything from meeting ground-rules, to picking core members, to creating values maps.

In Darby, the CPC has even decided not to work on the zoning project because they want their school district left unzoned.

Meetings across the county have been emotional and long. But the process, difficult as it has been, is very encouraging, said Don Elliot with Clarion Associates, the consultants hired to guide the county through the zoning process.

“It’s an inherently hard job, but Ravalli County has done a lot of organization and the process has been very good compared to other places,” Elliot said.

Last week, the values maps created by the CPCs were handed over to Clarion Associates.

These maps represent hours of meetings and discussion about how land in each school district should be zoned, what values should be protected, or if zoning should be instituted at all.

In Florence, the majority of the CPC members voted not to submit the final draft of the values maps they created, said Ravalli County planner Shaun Morrell.

“What the majority decided at the last meeting in Florence was not to send any map forward,” Morrell said. “But there were two minority reports submitted.”

The minority reports were basically a map based on previous input during the mapping exercise, as well as a proposed voluntary zoning district in the 8 Mile area, he said.

In Darby, the CPC decided to not submit any maps or materials at all.

The values maps will be an important tool used by Clarion Associates in designing the first drafts of the countywide zoning maps, which should be available by mid-April, said Don Elliot with Clarion Associates.

But the CPC values maps will only be one tool in creating the first draft of a zoning map, Elliot said. Other tools will include written comments, maps submitted by interest groups and the land suitability analysis.

The land suitability analysis gives Clarion Associates a good look at what areas of the county are suitable for growth, Elliot said.

“That was quite an effort the county went through and it was the right thing to do,” he said.

The process of taking all this input and formulating a map is complex, but it’s something Elliot and his staff are used to doing.

“The fact of taking maps that don’t agree and trying to put a best synthesis on the table is something we do all time,” he said. “You always receive maps where people have a difference of opinions about what will happen.”

Clarion Associates will put a zoning map together for the entire county and then break it up into school districts for the CPCs, Elliot said. The school district maps will show what is across the border in neighboring districts.

The Florence school district will be mapped, but the Darby school district will essentially be blank, he said.

“It’s going to show Darby as part of the countywide zoning maps, but it won’t have a zoning designation,” Elliot said. “We are considering them part of the zoning map for which we don’t have any guidance for proposed zones.”

The maps will have zoning designations and will also note areas where CPCs couldn’t find agreement. The idea is to put forth a map reflective of the process and differing opinions, he said.

But prior to the maps, county residents will receive another draft of the zoning regulations, Morrell said. These are expected back to the county by the first of April.

With in the next few weeks, the planning department will send out a countywide mailing explaining to citizens where the process is at and how they can be involved, he said. The mailing will include information on the countywide zoning, streamside setbacks and the open lands program.

Then Clarion Associates will host another workshop in late April to explain the new draft of the zoning regulations and zoning map, Morrell said.

The CPCs will review the new maps and make more recommendations to Clarion, he said. The public will also comment on the draft regulations.

The final zoning map and regulations should be presented to the county planning board in July, at which time the first official public hearing will be held, Morrell said.

For more information on the countywide zoning process and to see many of the documents drafted thus far, look on the county’s Web site: http://www.co.ravalli.mt.us/planning/CountywideZoning.htm.

Date for Darby straw poll set

By Greg Lemon

Citizens in the Darby school district, who do not live within the town limits, will vote on June 3 as to whether or not baseline, countywide zoning efforts should continue in their district.

The date was set at a Ravalli County Commissioner meeting Monday, which was a continuation of a March 17 meeting.

At the previous meeting, commissioners voted 4-1 to honor the outcome of a straw poll in the Darby school district. The only questions remaining were when the straw poll would happen and what the ballot language would be.

Stewart Brandborg, from Bitterrooters For Planning, objected to the straw poll in general, saying it went against the 2006 countywide vote that instituted emergency zoning and, in a sense, was a catalyst for the current countywide zoning process.

“We are proceeding in the interim zoning effort under a vote of the people of the county,” Brandborg said at Monday’s meeting. “This procedure may be subject to a legal challenge.”

It is important for all citizens in the Darby school district to voice their opinions and be informed about the process, Brandborg added. But the straw poll wouldn’t be the right thing to do.

“I challenge the validity of a straw vote,” he said.

Commissioner Greg Chilcott focused the meeting back to the subject at hand – the date of the straw poll and the ballot language.

The two dates proposed were May 6, which is a regular Darby school district election, or June 3, the presidential primary election.

John Lavey, Ravalli County planner and county liaison for the Darby Community Planning Committee, told commissioners the June 3 date would be better. The May 6 election has only one polling location, while the June 3 election is already set up for four polling spots.

Lavey also predicted a stronger turnout for the June 3 election since it would be a presidential primary and the polls would be equipped to handle more people than on May 6.

Another wrinkle in the decision is the fact that Darby town residents can’t vote in the straw poll, since it is concerning potential regulations only applicable to county landowners.

It would be easier to exclude the Darby precinct on the June 3 election, Lavey said.

Discussion also circulated about the term “baseline zoning” on the ballot language proposed by Lavey.

Many in the small audience at Monday’s meeting wanted a definition of “baseline.”

Lavey proposed the definition of “density, uses, lot line set backs and heights,” be used.

The commissioners unanimously agreed to add the definition and set the straw poll date June 3. Commissioners Carlotta Grandstaff and Jim Rokosch were absent.

The ballot will give voters two options: “YES, I want the County to continue to consider baseline zoning in the Darby School District,” or “NO, I do not want the County to continue to consider baseline zoning in the Darby School District.”

Commissioner Alan Thompson also stated if voters decided in the straw poll that they do not want the county to continue with baseline zoning, it wouldn’t legally bind the commissioners to drop the Darby school district from the countywide zoning process.

“What it means is we’ll take it into consideration,” Thompson said.

But Chilcott disagreed. The commissioners have decided to honor the straw poll results, he said.

Commissioners table decision over planning board/cpc member

By Michael Howell

Last Thursday, the County Commissioners briefly considered the possibility of removing Jan Wisniewski from either the Ravalli County Planning Board or the Darby Community Planning Committee (CPC). Wisniewski currently serves on both.

Commissioner James Rokosch, who placed the matter on the agenda, led the proceedings by reading from the ground rules adopted for the CPCs and referred to a recommendation that Planning Board members not serve on the CPCs.

“At the heart of today’s session,” said Rokosch, “ is the issue of a possible conflict of roles in the Planning Board and the CPCs.” Wisniewski has also been an outspoken critic of the countywide zoning process in both venues. Rokosch said that Wisniewski should probably choose between being on the Planning Board or on the Darby CPC.

Commissioner Greg Chilcott said, “I don’t think we surrender citizenship when taking office or joining the Planning Board. I respect passion and don’t want to stifle it in any way.” Chilcott called the CPC guidelines “permissive” and moved to table the agenda item.

Commissioner Alan Thompson seconded the motion but then apologized, saying that he did not know what the discussion was really about. He said, “I don’t know of any reason for removing anyone or who it is.”

Commissioner Kathleen Driscoll referred to an interaction that she had witnessed between Wisniewski and Commissioner Carlotta Grandstaff at the last Darby CPC meeting. She said that “Jan’s energy was pretty high and intense.” She said calm was needed in the zoning debate and people need to respect boundaries.

Grandstaff said that the language needed to be “ratcheted down.”

“We’re going through an unprecedented process,” said Grandstaff, “Words like ‘lynch’ and ‘rape’ are not appropriate. But I don’t support the removal of anyone from any board.”

Rokosch said that he didn’t either but there was still a question of conflict of roles and everyone needed to take the guidelines to heart.

The commissioners then voted to table the issue of possible removal of a board member.

A discussion followed and about a dozen people spoke in support of Wisniewski. They also spoke against zoning, against forest management practices and environmental lawsuits and against streamside setbacks.

“You woke up a sleeping giant,” said Bill Kyle from Darby. “Jan is the one who woke us up. So don’t come down to Darby and start jerking our heads around.”

David Merrick said, “You talk about a lot of threatening words, but a lot of us think zoning is a threatening word.”

Tom Robak said it was “a trust issue” and that it did not seem that the commissioners were really trying to get the word out and not getting enough information out about the teeth of the zoning that need to be discussed.

Grandstaff had to leave the meeting early and was not there when Wisniewski took the mic.

“My apologies,” said Wisniewski. “I guess I did get a little worked up. In the future I will tone it down. I still do respect you folks.” He said he hoped that the commissioners were ready to make some tough decisions.

Jerry Ehman, another Darby area resident, said to Rokosch, “You ask us to have an open mind, but you seem to be the one with the closed mind. You tell us if we are against zoning, don’t show up at the meetings.”

Aspen Springs back in line for review

Questions arise as to whether it must meet new regulations

By Michael Howell

The largest subdivision ever proposed in Ravalli County is now back in line for processing after a side trip to Ravalli County District Court. The Aspen Springs subdivision, proposed by Perry Ashby of Wesmont Developers, Inc., would create 671 lots on 393 acres east of Florence off of Lower Woodchuck Road in the Eight Mile area.

The subdivision was controversial when first proposed in 2006 and drew hundreds of people to several marathon public meetings before finally being denied by the County Commissioners in a 2 to 1 vote. The subdivision proposal was accompanied by eight different variance requests. It was the denial of one variance request in particular that precipitated the decision to deny the subdivision as a whole at the time. The variance would have allowed the developer to place a break-away emergency entrance instead of completing a road into a neighboring subdivision. The county has a rule requiring that new subdivisions have adequate connecting roads into neighboring subdivisions. Without the road and without the variance, the commissioners decided the subdivision as proposed was no longer sufficient to meet the regulatory requirements.

The developer sued the county over its denial. Although District Court Judge James Haynes upheld the commissioners’ denial of the variance, he also gave the developer 90 days to re-submit the application.

According to officials at the planning department, the re-submittal is basically the same as the initial submittal, but with the addition of a road to connect the subdivision to a neighboring one, removing the need for a variance request.

But County Planner Karen Hughes is not sure now how to process the re-application. She has asked Attorney William Wagner of Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, who was appointed by the Montana Association of Counties to handle the lawsuit, what regulations the re-application should be reviewed under, since regulations have changed. She also asked about how associated variance requests should be handled and if fees will be collected. Finally, she also asked whether the re-application would have to meet the restrictions imposed by the Interim Zoning Ordinance, which limits development to one house per two acres.

In a letter to the developer’s attorneys written on March 3, Wagner notes Judge Haynes’ ruling which “seems to imply, by using the term ‘remand’, that Wesmont return to its previous (October 17, 2006) position…”

Wagner states unequivocally, however, that “Wesmont cannot return to its previous position.” This is because of several substantive and procedural regulatory changes that were made since that time. He states that because the commissioners determined that the application at the time was “insufficient” following the denial of the variance request, it must now be reviewed based on the new regulations.

Under the new regulations, he notes, there is no longer a hearing before the Planning Board, but there is one before a five-member County Commission, and “most importantly, 1 per 2 zoning in effect until November 7, 2008 is fatal to the application…”

Wagner suggests that Wesmont, “at least consider requesting clarification from the Court. Although the County’s position on these issues differs from Wesmont’s, we will cooperate with Wesmont in expediting a return to the Court for what appears to be clarification and direction.”

Attorneys for Wesmont did not return telephone calls on Monday in time for publication./p>

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2008 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney