Condon Container Site

We have reviewed the “2018 Swan Valley Regional Plan” and the follow-on associated "Condon Container Site Presentation" dated 19 April 2022. Further, we have spoken to many residents and listened to their concerns. There is quite a bit of missing information relative to the analysis that was conducted to derive the solution of installing a container site in Condon. We have numerous questions regarding the historical activities and decisions that were made:
1. Slide 6 reflects the proposed site budget.
a. What criteria was used to determine the estimated costs?
b. To what degree and how was Republic Services involved in this project?
c. How was the levy cost of $300 per property determined?
d. If this site is made operational, what will the real levy be? If $300 was initially determined using 2021 figures, what will be the revised costs in 2023 or beyond?
e. Will Republic Services raise costs annually and if so, what prevents them from exceeding reasonable price increases? Will voters have the levy increases placed on a ballot?
f. If this is a county facility, why isn’t Missoula County assisting with the cost? As a county resident, I can use other refuse sites and only pay a single-use fee.
g. What exactly will the residents get for “Operations” at a cost of $165,775 annum?
h. Why are Annual and Equipment Reserve funds being built into the costs?

2. Slide 9 reflects the proposed “Container Site Operations”. It states that this will be a 4-Bay Site, open two days per week (one weekday and one weekend day), executed by Republic Services or another provider, with oversight being provided by Missoula County Public Works Department.
a. What criteria was used to determine the size of this site? Why 4-bays and not 3-bays or 5-bays?
b. Why were only two days selected instead of being open for the entire week?
c. If this site is supposed to be operational for only two days per week, why is a permanent structure that is fully outfitted with water, sewer, electrical, and internet needed? Is this site supposed to mimic the site at Seeley Lake Transfer Station?
d. Why is $100,000 for a backhoe needed? Why can’t a used machine be procured if this site is only operational for two days per week?

3. Slide 7 states there are 704 properties within the district that would be impacted.
a. Where can I get a copy of the 704 properties list?
b. “Estimated Assessment – $300/property/year +/-“. How will this levy be imposed on owners who possess multiple properties within the district? The concern and as an example are if an owner possesses three separate lots will they be imposed a $900 charge per year?
c. “Vacant Land – Not Assessed”. If this is correct, then the 704 properties all have structures on them?
d. Owners that utilize Republic Service's residential pick-up service will not need this site, therefore will they be excluded from the taxation?

4. General Observations:
a. The presentation does not provide quantity limits of refuse per owner, per year. What will be the limit (if any) of refuse that can be disposed? If there is a limit and after it is exceeded, will there be additional fees and what would those be? Conversely, will owners that do not meet the annual limitation receive a refund?
b. What role does the Swan Valley Connections organization play in this project? As they are not a government agency, are they contractors? If this is the case, do they only have an advisory role and no voice in this project?
c. On 19 July 2022 at the monthly Swan Valley Community Council meeting, Ms. Marsha Tapp (Swan Valley Community Council Member) made a motion to forever close this project. She received a unanimous second by all members except Ms. Kathy Koors who was not present at the meeting. What are the next steps to ensuring this project is closed to completion?
d. On 19 July 2022 at the monthly Swan Valley Community Council meeting council member Grace Siloti mentioned a meeting that was held prior to the council meeting that was not open to the public. Per Montana statute MCA 2-3-201, all meetings are to be open to the public. Additionally, the failure to give notice can result in the actions of the Board being voided per MCA 2-3-213. Where are the meeting minutes for this closed meeting? Will clandestine meetings continue to the held by the council that are detrimental to building a trustful relationship between the community and the council?

Thank you so much for your time and I look forward to your responses.
Best regards,

Philip S. Davis and Liana M. Orsolini

Many communities in Western Montana are dealing with bear conflict issues. The main causes are the same: garbage and other attractants. Condon, like so many other places, has a human behavioral problem which probably won't lessen by establishing
another trash transfer site in the Valley. As this process is unfolding, it seems like there are a few issues rising to the top. Following are some of the driving forces for the desire to have a local container site. 1. People are leaving garbage cans on the roads and highway which attracts bears. (Even bear resistant containers are not totally full proof from bears.) People don't replace worn out containers. There's a regulation against leaving containers out, but it's not being followed or enforced. Why? 2. Inconvenience of having to take garbage 30 miles either way to an existing transfer site. This results in people delaying trips and improper storage of their garbage in between trips. This then results in bears being attracted to the neighborhood. There are laws that cover this, too. Game wardens don't write tickets. Why not? 3. Some don't have or want to use curbside service. They haul their garbage to Lake County or to Seeley. Those are extra trips and cut into personal time so would like to have a more local dumping option. 4. Tourists, campers, and others are improperly disposing of and containing their garbage Personally, I think we already have mini transfer sites available without building a new one. They are called dumpsters which Republic Services (& now maybe Grizzly Disposal) comes to get on a weekly basis. Are there more locations possible for people who don't have curbside service and don't want to drive 30 miles to cooperatively have a dumpster? If yes, then those who use them are the ones who actually pay for them, and a special district tax would not be needed. Dumpsters can easily be installed, replaced, and even removed. They, like individual containers, must be kept clean, secure, and protected from becoming wildlife attractants. The biggest arguments against a local container site, financed by a special tax district, are: 1. It's a tax on all property owners in the district for something that is optional to use. This tax won't go away, it'll only increase. Property owners are already staring at property tax increases coming due to property values that have skyrocketed in the past 2 years. We are facing the highest inflation rates, maybe ever, right now. Why would the County or anyone else push this on owners of 704 properties, many of whom already have their garbage in check and are fine with what they're doing? 2. It's an environmental hazard and will attract bears and other wildlife. No matter what the experts have said, the reality is noone wants a trash container site near their home. 3. Other options are out there. Not sure if the panel who came up with the proposal explored them. Condon can figure out something better than a widespread tax for a trash site that hasn't been fully vetted. By that, I mean, not enough input has been received from or shared with the property owners who might use, but all would pay for, the proposed or any iteration of, a local trash container site. I truly don't think it is being selfish to ask people to pay for what they want, need, and will use. As long as existing disposal options remain, there's no need to add a new transfer site. If any of the existing options go away, then another discussion may be warranted. Those are our thoughts. We hope proponents and opponents will come together and find common ground to truly explore alternatives. Happy 4th! 🇺🇸

Did some brainstorming for a Proposed Needs Assessment for Garbage Transfer Site:
1. # of bear incidents involving non-bear resistent containment of garbage over the last 3 years compared to increases in Missoula County Condon area human and bear population;
2. same as #1 but with bear use of proper bear resistant containment of garbage;
3. # and % of complaints, compared to citations issued for improper garbage containment over last 3 years and cross checking this to bear and human population increases;
4. # of adresses using bear resistent garbage cans and/or bear resistant dumpsters compared to # of addresses not using them
5. cross check of adresses not using bear resistent garbage containment with # of complaints with # of citations over last 3 years
Wondering how many bad actors are there out of the 704 addresses targeting for proposed container site? less than 10? If this is correct, wouldn't it make more sense to target them instead of increasing all of our property taxes for a "solution" these bad actors dont have to use?

Shane, I spoke with Forest Service today and the Baber Creek site is permitted to Missoula County for the gravel not garbage. The Forest Service has no paperwork on this proposed site, and they stated if they were to receive formal paperwork then they would begin an entire process of environmental studies and comment period.
I also was in contact with an attorney today to get this project to stop.
Thank you
Chris Barnes

A container site, set in a residential neighborhood just off the highway, paid for by establishing a special tax district and assessing 704 property owners whether or not they use the site, is a bad idea. Please don't do it. This proposal is causing much strife within the Condon community. Some call opponents "hot heads". Friends are calling each other liars. This community is being ripped apart, and it's very sad to see how this proposal is causing so much heartache. We take our little bit of trash back to Missoula every week, so unless we lived here full time, we don't need and would not use a transfer site. When we saw the estimated costs and proposed location of the container site, we were surprised. Do garbage disposal issues in this Valley really warrant such an elaborate and expensive site? As long as current disposal options remain available, another site is not necessary. It doesn't sound like local folks knew this evaluation was happening until it was presented at the April Community Council meeting. A feasibility study called for by the 2018 SV Community Plan became a full on proposal with timelines. Since April, more Condon property owners have become informed but still not as many as could/should have been while groups from SVC, the County, Forest Service, SV Community Council, etc. were meeting (2021 to early 2022) to establish a proposal. The proposal is scaring many in this Community and they are very vocal about it. A large majority of those who responded to the poll on this web site say they do not support creating a new trash site. The poll and other information is only available on the MissoulaCountyVoice.com web site. SV Community Facebook Page has many more unfavorable comments, and at the monthly SV Community meetings the opposition is strong. Initially, we heard there was no budget for a mailout to all who could benefit from and who would pay for the proposed new trash container site. The evaluation was thorough, but it is misleading, because we're told this is only a proposal and no decision has been made to put a transfer site here, yet the proposal has a timeline. It must have taken a lot of time and effort to pull the proposal together. Thanks to all who worked hard on it. We wish more community members could have had input or would have been polled before this proposal became public knowledge. Now we're playing catchup. The County and Public Works say that at the request of someone in this Condon community, put this together, because the community requested such. The County took the request for help seriously and is trying to get the issue in front of as many property owners as possible. Thank you. To some, the current proposal goes too far. To others it looks good. All love this Valley and have good reasons for how they feel. We believe Condon can find better solutions than construction of another garbage transfer site to deal with increasing amounts and irresponsible disposal of garbage. Please back off of this proposal before it goes to a public hearing. Let the Community Council establish a local work group to evaluate alternatives. An huge majority of those who responded to the poll said they do not support the proposal. There are now, have been, and will continue to be garbage disposal problems here. The Honzels don't have the answers, but we're certain people who live here, whether full or part time, do. Collectively a solution will be found.
Here are a few ideas:
Ask Republic Services to present any options or ideas for consolidating the number of curbside customer containers on the roads. Offer a discount for bear resistant containers.
2. Ask local businesses if they would consider adding locked dumpsters on their commercial properties for a "pay as you go" system.
3. Ask SVC if they could provide dumpsters as a perk for their employees.
4. Evaluate other locations for a "pay as you go" or establish a permit system. Those who want another transfer station and who will use it should provide the financial support for and maintain it. Maybe a private property owner could donate or lease a portion of their land to the few people who want another option? This is not something that should be on all of our tax bills. We need to get more creative with solutions.
Finally, this is not a public health issue, and we really hope County Public Works and Commissioners don't take over and force a special district and tax.
Thanks again for your patience and cooperation with this process. Vickie (and Chris) Honzel

As a summer cabin homeowner, I am opposed to development of the trash disposal site. For the limited amount of time I spend at the lake, my needs are being met by disposing trash at my primary residence in Missoula. CE

We are strongly opposed to the proposed transfer site in Condon. Based on publicly available information about the proposed site, and the community's responses, it seems apparent that the proposed site was just a suggestion by a few residents, and after some study, it fails to adhere to region policies, will produce negative social, financial and environmental effects, and is simply not needed.

I decided to take a look at the 2018 Final Draft of the Swan Valley Regional Plan (called the "Swan Valley Neighborhood Plan" on the Missoula County website, and available here: https://www.missoulacounty.us/.../32057/636904228832500000). Here are some relevant sections of the plan that pertain to this topic.
1. Under section 3, Land Use, under the "Goals, Policies and Actions" at the end, #5 says "Discourage any type of business, industry, public facility, or project that would degrade the area’s air and/or water quality."
2. Under Section 6, "Public Facilities and Services". Section 6.8 describes the current status: 6.8 Refuse Disposal Household and commercial refuse disposal in the planning area is provided on a monthly fee basis by Republic Services. Collection is once per week, and Republic sends collection packers down most county roads. For a fee, some Swan residents opt to haul trash to Seeley Lake or to the Lake County Transfer site."
3. Under Section 6 Goals, Policies and Actions, action item #3, the only one that mentions the trash issue, says
"3. Explore the feasibility of a trash transfer station and community recycling program."
Based on my admittedly unprofessional reading of this document, it seems that the action item to explore the feasibility of a trash transfer station has been completed. It was done, the economic impact was calculated, a suitable site was offered by the county. So it seems that this is done.
Given the policy of the community to discourage any projects that have negative impacts on air and water quality, and given the obvious negative impact a trash transfer station would have on air and water, it seems that such transfer station would be in conflict with the stated goals of the plan.

My wife and I responsibly store and dispose of our trash, and have no need for, nor any interest in, a local disposal site that would be an attractant to bears, cause negative air and water quality impacts, and reduce property values for those adjacent to the site.

My question is, why is this site still being considered, given that the only request (for a feasibility study) was well performed and is complete? There is not remit for anyone to be pursuing this idea further without substantial and additional background research.

We hear that there is some push for this site for grizzly bear management purposes because of individual trash storage practices. I would submit that while this is an actual issue that may need continual considerations and education, it should be dealt with by other means rather than a coercive tax impact on the landowners. Wildlife management should not drive community infrastructure decisions, but should only be subservient to other priorities.

We think it is reasonable to ask at this point: why is this proposed project still active at the county level, and who, specifically, is driving it and why?

John and Deborah Hallman, residents and landowners

Unfortunately, some in the Swan either don't dispose of garbage properly, or "save" it until they have a complete truck load of garbage to dispose of else where. If each community land owner and resident would adhere to some basic living with wildlife etiquette, perhaps the container site wouldn't be necessary. That is a big PERHAPS. I am in favor of the site, especially if we could work together to lower the cost. A well managed container site would not be a bear attractant. Since Porcupine has become manned, and limited hours, the site has improved significantly.

This part of Montana is one of the most beautiful spots on earth. It would be a crime to build this trash disposal site. No matter what method you use to conceal it, it will be a blight on the beauty of the area. It will attract wildlife that is already being threatened by an increased human population and infringement of their habitat. This dump site would be an attraction nuisance and a threat to them. The land owners near the site would see their property value lowered unfairly. Nobody wants to live near a dump. The properties in that area are well cared for and attractive. I think for the amount of money that would be spent on the site and the annual cost to land owners, a creative solution could be found for the disposal of trash that would solve the disposal problem without building this trash site. I suggest that a group be formed to investigate alternative solutions. I am strongly opposed to the building of this site and urge you to think of the long term effect on the land and the environment. I vote NO!

Hello,
We transport our trash from our summer home to our primary residence in Missoula. This would not change with the construction of a disposal site. Therefore, we'd be assessed for a product we do not use.
A NO vote.

We have been summer lake residents for some 60 years. We use bear proof garbage containters and haul our garbage weekley to Missoula or Kalispell.
There is also a reliable and convenient disposal service.
For me, this is an unneeded expense to the property owners!
I vote NO on this proposal

I vote NO!
As one of the nearest residents to this proposed garbage dump (call it what it is) I do not need any more Bears or large predators wandering through my property, especially when they are being baited to my residence by Missoula County at a cost to me of $300.00 a year. The proposed site is in one of the most active Grizzly corridors in the State, immediately borders a residential area, is directly across the road from a restored wildlife area and at one of the accesses to the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Residents of the this area, their children and grandchildren use this road for recreation and play. The location of this site makes the potential for Bear encounters very high.
Swan Valley already has a disposal service and it works very well. We use a bear proof container and freeze all meat scraps then place them in the container the night before pickup. Never had a problem with the container being tossed. I am in favor of bear proof containers not a garbage dump.
Barber Creek Rd. already serves as a garbage receptacle for disrespectful out of town campers and hunters who toss their trash on the roadside for my neighbors and myself to pickup, the County Road Crews leave it right where it lays. The addition of a garbage dump is only going to escalate the problem. When the tourists, campers and hunters show up and find the dump closed on that particular day or don't agree with the cost some will simply leave it at the fence or on roadside for the animals to disperse and the local residents to pickup. My neighbors and I should not be subjected to the mess and the smell this is going to generate.
The cost of this site and the added cost to our tax bill is too high. If this proposal goes through the residents in the Barber Creek area will see their property value dive while their property taxes rise right along with the rest of the folks in the valley. The added assessment for this is guaranteed to never go away and only increase every year.

To those of you who consider this a good idea and location and voted yes maybe Missoula County will look in to putting this next to your house. How would you like that?
Once again I vote NO!

Republic does a good job. I'd have to vote no.

Arlee transfer station closes due to bears!

Thank you Patrick Gleason

After reading other comments I would have to change my vote. I never really considered those who live on or near Barber Creek. It would have been nice to see the comments before me commenting. Being seasonal the drive to Seeley or Lake County really isn't that bad and is not a bad deal in exchange for the quality of life for those who live in the area.

This proposal is 8% of our total tax bill, with no way to cap expenses for a service which is available on a limited access basis . . . . we do not need nor want this proposed garbage collection system. For 20 years we have managed our own disposal and use of this proposed green box system is not worth the cost now nor with the inevitable tax increases. Private enterprise options are available with greater benefit.

We own a summer cabin on Lindbergh Lake. We currently take our garbage to Seeley Lake typically monthly (about 4 times per year) or take the garbage back to Missoula. The assessment fees seem to be very high for those of us who have improved land, but do not live there year-round. I am opposed to the Condon area disposal site.

I am not in favor of such a site, so I would vote no. In my travels I have see many such sites and I can say that they are not able to keep animals out and are not well maintained. It seems to me that the Republic pick-up service seems to attend to most peoples needs where other residences choose to do drop off at the Seeley and mm68 facilities on their way into town.

I would like to see Missoula County take a look at how solid waste in rural areas is handled in other counties, because I think the privatization is what is creating the inequity in our community. I live on the corner of the highway, so of all people, I should just pay Republic to pick up my trash. However, I don't. I would not notice the assessment on my tax bill as it just comes out automatically with my mortgage and insurance payments to escarow, so I'm all for having the $300 annual assessment if needed. because of the hour that Republic has to pick up our trash here, most folks put their trash out at the start of the weekend or just leave their can at the end of the road and add trash to it (again, since I live where everyone up Kraft Creek Road leaves their trash cans, I see this.) The cans are a bear attractant. Out of town visitors have no place to take trash - we see this too - they are dumping trash in any open containers, on the sides of the highway, or in containers designated for food storage at campgrounds. Condon needs a container site, with recycling.