Park Board sends cabin lease revisions to county attorney

At the end of a special meeting Thursday, the Hill County Park Board approved sending a draft revision of lease agreements for Beaver Creek Park cabins to the Hill County Attorney almost unchanged, despite audience members saying their suggestions on ways to improve the draft were essentially ignored.

“We do have to make decisions and sometimes they are not popular, but they need to be done,” Hill County Commission Chair Mark Peterson said during the meeting.

Beaver Creek Park secretary Aubrey Williams said the schedule is tight, but if approval comes quickly enough she could send the revised agreements out this year.

The board’s Rules and Regulations Committee has been working on revising the cabin lease agreements for well more than a year, and the special meeting started at 4 p.m. in the Timmons Room of the Hill County Courthouse to hear comments on the draft revisions and to vote on sending it to the attorney for review.

The board voted unanimously after making some revisions to send the draft to the attorney, with only board Chair Steve Mariani unable to attend. The three Hill County commissioners, who are members of the board, came into the meeting late due to other conflicting meetings and appointments, but were present for the vote.

Several audience members said they had attended meetings of the committee over the past year and made numerous suggestions, but those suggestions were not used.

“Are we doing something wrong about getting comments to the right people?” Lou Hagener asked the board.

He said he had made numerous suggestions on language to make the lease more understandable and avoid problems that could arise from wording, but none were used, adding that he received no response to his written comments.

“They rejected our comments … but we don’t know why,” Hagener said.

Williams said she had received two written comments since the special meeting was announced, one from Todd Hanson and one from Blanche Kellam.

Hanson, who was at the meeting, went over his suggestions, with one fixing a typographical error where the draft revision referred to the wrong section of Montana Code Annotated.

The first suggestion he made was that the draft should be reviewed to see if it would work as a binding legal document, because it only lists obligations on one side. While the draft lists the obligations of the people leasing the cabins, it lists no obligations of the park or park board, he said.

For example, Hanson said, especially after severe flooding in recent years, the heavy snow this year and the East Fork Fire that burned in the Bear Paw Mountains including on the park, the agreement should include the park’s responsibility for maintaining and repairing roads and providing access to the cabins.

Another issue he and other cabin owners have discussed is damage caused by grazing cattle. The lease could include the park’s responsibility in helping people pay for repairs, potentially out of the revenue from the cattle leasing, he said.

Hanson also asked when, since he in his letter asked for a written response, would receive the response.

Williams said she had forwarded his letter to the county attorney along with a copy of the draft to which his letter referred. No response could be made until that was reviewed, she said.

Williams went over the suggestions from Kellam, who was not able to attend Thursday’s meeting.

Williams said the first involved a section saying the board would approve or deny all lease agreements and proposed work on cabin sites, with Kellam suggesting “with just cause” be added at the end.

The next was suggesting that when people do not pay their lease on time, the extra amount charged after the $50 for the first month be increased for following months from $25 to $75.

Another suggestion was to set cabin inspections to once every two years, dividing the park in half so each half would be done every other year.

After the discussion was opened to audience members, Robert Williams made a comment similar to Kellam’s last suggestion, saying the board could set categories with some cabins that had not been in compliance needing a yearly inspection with others inspected every other year.

Michael Perrodin asked how long people would be able to take to make changes to get property into compliance, and if they could be grandfathered in. He said a new regulation — that the one allowed outbuilding could not be more than 11 feet high — makes his 11-foot-six-inch tall outbuilding out of compliance when it was not before.

“As a lease holder, I want to know, am I in compliance or not?” he said.

The board discussed whether or how variances on regulations could be grandfathered in, and on that and on several issues agreed that they would refer the questions to the county attorney.

“We don’t know everything, and we want to get it right,” said board Vice Chair Larry Kinsella, who presided over the meeting.

In the end, the board approved a couple of changes to the draft, including correcting the Montana Code Annotated reference Hanson pointed out and setting a 30-day deadline for board members to inspect a cabin that is up for sale to make sure it is in compliance.

Other suggested changes, such as Kellam’s suggestion that “with just cause” be added, were not made, sometimes with lengthy discussion.

Hagener brought back the question as to why suggestions had not been acted on. Hanson had brought up the incorrect Montana Code Annotated citation four times before it was acted on, he said.

“Did you not change it or did you just miss it?” he asked.

Peterson said changes being left out did not mean they were not considered.

He said that many of the concerns should not cause any problems.

“This board has always been fair,” he said. “This board has never been unreasonable.”

The board sending it to the county attorney also does not mean public comment is over, Peterson added. If the attorney recommends substantial changes, public comment on the changes again will occur before the board sends the final revision to the county commission, and the county commission must hold public hearings before it votes on the proposed revisions.