Ramlow/BNSF Rail Easement AbandonmentRAMLOW & RUDBACH, PLLP
James M. Ramlow
Karl K. Rudbach
Angela M. Vaninetti
R. Blair Strong
Matthew K. Hutchison
Susan Lacosta
ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW
542 Central Avenue
Whitefish, MT 59937
June 15, 2018
Doug Russell, City Manager
Charles Harball, City Attorney
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Katharine King, MPA, CecD
Asst Director Community Development
City of Kalispell
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: BNSF Kalispell Rail Easement Abandonment
Dear Mr. Russell, Mr. Harball, and Ms. King:
Phone (406) 862-7503
Fax (406) 862-7530
E-mail:
jmr@ranilowrudbach.com
karl@ramlowrudbach.com
angela@ramlowrudbach.com
rbs@ramlowrudbach.com
matt@ramlowrudbach. com
susan@whitefishlaw.com
I am writing on behalf of Gerald and Hattie Stahlberg, the owners of a 6.593-acre tract lying
north of Center Street and extending west of Fifth Avenue West. The Stahlbergs wish to meet
with appropriate representatives of the City to discuss where, and under what circumstances, they
are willing to accept a public trail through their property. Several rail lines and siding tracks
owned by BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and operated by Mission Mountain Railroad, LLC
cover much of the surface of the Stahlberg property pursuant to an easement reserved by the
predecessor of BNSF in its deed to Glacier Park Company in 1988. Mr. Stahlberg acquired the
tract from Glacier Park Company in 1990, subject to the BNSF easement.
As you are aware, in April of 2017 BNSF petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for
an exemption under 49 USC Sec. 10502 from the provisions of 49 USC Sec. 10903 allowing it to
June 15, 2018
Page 2
abandon two sections of its rail line, including the line and sidings on the Stahlbergs' property.'
Shortly thereafter the City of Kalispell requested a Public Use Condition and Certificate or
Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) from the STB.'
On August 14, 2017 the STB granted BNSF's petition for exemption subject to various
conditions, effective September 13, 2017, and issued the NITU requested by the City. The NITU
authorizes BNSF to negotiate with the City or other interested persons concerning acquisition of
the track right-of-way for 180 days, during which BNSF is permitted to remove its tracks, ties,
and signal equipment, but otherwise to preserve the corridor for potential public use, either under
16 USC Sec. 1247(d) of the National Trail Systems Act or under 49 USC 10905.'
By a separate letter filed with the STB on February 26, 2018 the City requested an additional 180
to 365 days to conclude its negotiations with BNSF concerning its proposed acquisition of the
right-of-way. On March 21, 2018 the STB granted the City's request for an extension until
February 10, 2019. The order granting the extension provides that the exemption granted on
August 14, 2017 remains in effect subject to all of the conditions imposed in that original
decision.
In addition, consistent with the "Statement of Willingness to Assume Financial Responsibility"
contained in the City's original request for Public Use Condition and NITU, paragraph 3 of the
STB's extension order requires that if an "interim trail use/railbanking agreement" is reached
with BNSF, the agreement
... must require the trail sponsor to assume, for the term of the agreement, full
responsibility for: (i) managing the right-of-way; (ii) any legal liability arising out
of the transfer or use of the right-of-way (unless the sponsor is immune from
liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad against any potential
liability); and (iii) the payment of any and all taxes that may be levied or assessed
'BNSF Railway Company Petition for Exemption in Surface Transportation Board
Docket No. AB-6 (SUB -NO. 495X) April 26, 2017. Herein BNSF Petition for Exemption.
2Letter from Doug Russell to STB dated May 19, 2017 filed in STB Docket No. AB-6
(Sub -No. 495X) on May 23, 2017.
'Decision and Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment in Docket No. AB 6 (Sub -No.
495X) dated August 14, 2017.
June 15, 2018
Page 3
against the right-of-way.'
Gerald and Hattie Stahlberg are long-time residents of Kalispell, and wish the best for
community development. For many years Mr. Stahlberg has owned and operated Northwest
Machinery, a diesel equipment sales and repair shop on the west end of the property. The
Stahlbergs do not object to a trail system extending through their property but they are very
concerned that the City's plans for use of the existing BNSF easement could unreasonably and
unnecessarily devalue their property. They are willing to discuss an alternative trail location with
the City, presumably along the southern boundary line of their property. It is important to them
however, that the City understands (1) that its plans could cause legal and financial harm to them,
(2) that they are willing to voluntarily provide an alternative route, and (3) that the City is
potentially liability to them for compensation if it converts the existing railroad right-of-way into
a trail and linear park.
The Stahlbergs are aware that Section 8(d) of the 1983 amendments to the National Trail
Systems Act (16 USC Sec. 1247(d))' added language which pre-empts state property law
concerning "abandonment." Specifically it provides that when an existing track right-of-way is
converted to some other public use (an "interim use"), and such interim use is subject to
"restoration or reconstruction for railroad purposes" the interim use is not treated for purposes of
any law as an abandonment of the use of such rights -of -way for railroad purposes. They have
two comments on this provision's application to this project.
First, the proposed track removal project does not meet the "subject to restoration or
reconstruction" criteria of Section 8(d), so the easement crossing their property will be
automatically terminated upon removal of the track as a matter of state law. The Stahlbergs'
ownership of the 6.593-acre tract is subject to an easement reserved by the deed from Burlington
Northern Railroad Company (now BNSF) to Glacier Park Company in December of 1988. That
easement is limited by its terms to "railroad purposes" and remains in effect only until the
railroad company removes its "facilities" with the intent to abandon the easement:
RESERVING, however, unto said Grantor, its successors and assigns, a
railroad easement including the right, privilege and easement to construct,
maintain, repair, renew, use, operate over, replace or remove railroad tracks,
drainage facilities and appurtenances thereto in, along, over, upon or across that
'Surface Transportation Board Decision (Service Date March 22, 2018), Docket No. AB
6 (Sub -No. 495X)
'PL 90-543, Sec. 8(d). Herein "Section 8(d)"
June 15, 2018
Page 4
portion of the premises herein conveyed, as shown shaded on the attached Exhibit
"B" and by this reference made a part hereof.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement for so long as the same is used
or required for railroad purposes and until said Grantor, its successors or
assigns, shall remove all such facilities from the said premises with the intent to
abandon said easement. Upon such removal with the intent to abandon said
premises, the easement created hereby shall immediately terminate without
further action by Grantor or Grantee. Grantee may, at any time after the
termination of the easement created hereby, record an affidavit of termination in
the public records to conclusively evidence the termination of the easement.'
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed by the City, the Federal Railroad
Administration, the Surface Transportation Board, and others in June and July of 2017 under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act' makes clear that the "abandonment" in
this case does not, in any sense, meet the core requirement of Section 8(d) that the planned
"interim use" is in fact subject to "restoration or reconstruction for railroad purposes." The
MOA makes plain that the proposed "interim use" is in substance a trade of existing track
easements serving an area of Kalispell that is to be re -developed in exchange for a newly -
constructed "Glacier Rail Park." For example, the second recital to the MOA describes a two-
phase project consisting of Phase 1, the construction and operation of the Glacier Rail Park,
"allowing for the removal of the original track in Kalispell," and Phase 2, the "rail -to -trail"
component!
Likewise, Attachment 2 (Statement of Work) to a July, 2017 "Cooperative Agreement" between
the City and the Federal Railroad Administration authorizing a $10,000,000 TIGER discretionary
'Quitclaim Deed from Burlington Northern Railroad Company to Glacier Park Company,
dated December 12, 1988, recorded May 5, 1989 in the Office of the Flathead County Clerk and
Recorder as Document No. 8912510160. (Emphasis added) I have attached a copy of the deed
as Exhibit "A".
'54 USC Section 306108.
$Memorandum of Agreement Among The Federal Railway Administration, The Montana
State Historic Preservation Officer, The City of Kalispell, Montana, The Surface Transportation
Board, and The Northwest Montana Historical Society Regarding The Glacier Rail
Park/Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Project - Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana,
p. 1 (Signed June 26 and 28, and July 6 and 7, 2017) Herein "MOA."
June 15, 2018
Page 5
grant likewise indicates that the creation of rail services at the Rail Park is "Phase 1" of an
overall project which "will allow for the abandonment and removal of nearly two miles of
existing BNSF-owned rail that currently bisects downtown Kalispell east to west."' The goal
expressed in the Statement of Work is not retention of a corridor for eventual restoration or
reconstruction of a rail line. Instead, its focus is development of a new industrial rail park and
removal of railroad tracks making way for "revitalization," "walkability," and "access to outside
markets through the railroad."
The grant initiated a public planning process that included extensive community
involvement and resulted in the "Core Area Plan." The planning process
identified the development of a new industrial rail park with a rails -to -trails
pedestrian connector through town as the community's number one priority.
Removal of the railroad tracks through town would allow the Core Area to be
revitalized through reinvestment; make Kalispell a walkable, greener, and more
attractive community; and also maintain access to outside markets through the
railroad. This served as the basis for the eventual TIGER 2015 grant
application.10
Similarly, the Statement of Work identifies the objective of Phase 1 (construction of the Glacier
Rail Park consisting of 10,000 linear feet of newly -constructed rail and rail turnaround, complete
with access to City water and sewer, power, gas, and fiber optics), as the pre -requisite to Phase 2
(the Kalispell Trail):
Construction of the Rail Park will allow for the abandonment of the existing
BNSF-owned rail that bisects downtown Kalispell."
The Statement of Work identifies the overall purpose of the project's two phases as improving
safety, quality of life, and economic competitiveness of the Core Area:
The purpose of the Project is to improve safety and quality of life, and increase
'Cooperative Agreement No. FR-TII-0046-17 between City of Kalispell as "Recipient"
and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, signed July 26 and
27, 2017. (Attachment 2 - Statement of Work at Sec. 1.0 "Background") Herein, "Statement of
Work."
old.
"Statement of Work, Sec. 2.0 "General Objective"
June 15, 2018
Page 6
economic competitiveness of the Core Area in the City of Kalispell. This is
accomplished through improved roadway traffic safety and efficiency; the
provision of safe, alternative modes of transportation; the revitalization of
Kalispell's historic downtown are to attract additional businesses, retail, and
residential uses; and through the provision of local and regional business access to
rail. The Rail Park will provide for future economic development and allow
connectivity to regional, national, and international markets.12
The purposes and scope of the Project as articulated in the MOA and Cooperative Agreement
consistently tie the Phase 1 construction of the Glacier Rail Park to the Phase 2 "abandonment"
or "removal of track."
WHEREAS, Phase I of the Project must be constructed and operational,
with rail traffic moved off the existing rail line, the existing rail line abandoned by
BNSF Railway Company (the owner of the rail line) through a process involving
the Surface Transportation Board (STB), and the ROW acquired by the City,
before the City can construct Phase II of the Project.13
Finally, the BNSF Petition for Exemption to the STB confirms that its line through Kalispell
"does not contain federally granted rights of way," and that no federal interests or transportation
policies are adversely affected by the proposed abandonment and removal of track.
Other aspects of the rail transportation policy are not adversely affected.
For example, competition and the continuation of a sound rail transportation
system are not affected as the two customers on the Line, Northwest Drywall &
Building Supply and CHS Inc. do not oppose the abandonment and will be
relocating to Glacier Rail Park.14
Significantly, neither the Memorandum of Agreement nor the Cooperative Agreement or its
attachments, nor the BNSF Petition for Exemption identify as a purpose or goal of the Project the
Section 8(d) condition for pre-emption of state property law, namely the preservation of a rail
corridor "subject to restoration or reconstruction for railroad purposes." Rather, the agreements
to which the City is a party make plain that no such restoration or reconstruction is contemplated
'2Id.
"MOA, p. 1
14BNSF Petition for Exemption, pp 2, 5.
June 15, 2018
Page 7
because the existing track is to be "abandoned" in favor of routing future rail traffic through the
new Glacier Rail Park facility.
On that basis, the Stahlbergs do not agree that the existing track easements through their property
will remain in effect upon removal of the rails, ties, and other "facilities." The requirements of
Section 8(d) are not satisfied by this Project. Accordingly, the terms of the easement reserved by
Burlington Northern Railroad Company in its 1988 quitclaim deed to Glacier Park Company
remain legally enforceable. Upon removal of the track facilities, the railroad easement will
"immediately terminate without further action," and BNSF will have nothing to convey to the
City. The construction of a trail and linear park by the City, and its invitation to the public to use
the Stahlberg property on any route not consented to by the Stahlbergs would constitute a
trespass on private property.
The Stahlberg's second comment is that even if a court should determine that the Project as
defined in the MOA, Cooperative Agreement, and Petition for Exemption somehow satisfies the
requirements of Section 8(d), the transfer of the railroad easement to the City and the City's use
of the easement for non -railroad is a compensable "taking" under the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Even subject to the existing railroad easement, the Montana Department of Revenue values the
property at $247,800. As of yet the Stahlbergs have not engaged an appraisal of their property's
value unencumbered by the easement because they anticipate that they will be able to come to an
agreement with the City for an appropriate trail route. If they are unable to reach such an
agreement, the compensation to which they would be entitled would be measured by the
difference between its value subject to an ongoing easement on the existing right-of-way for a
trail and other public use amenities and its value not subject to those features. They anticipate
that because the railroad right-of-way covers much of the mid -section of their property the
difference in value without the easement will be substantial.
It is important for the City to recognize its potential for liability to pay compensation to the
Stahlbergs. While recognizing that Congress had the power to enact Section 8(d), the Supreme
Court has held that its exercise of the power in particular cases would be permitted under the
Fifth Amendment takings clause only if the underlying landowner has a claim for compensation.
Accordingly, it ruled that such claims are permissible, and not foreclosed by Section 8(d), under
a federal statute commonly referenced as the Tucker Act.15
"Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 494 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1990), citing 28 USC
Sec. 1491(a)(1).
June l5, 2018
Page 8
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Preseault the property owners affected by the
conversion of a railroad right-of-way into a trail under the National Trails System Act filed a
claim for compensation in the United States Court of Federal Claims (CFC). Initially the court
dismissed the Preseaults' claim but the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
reversed that ruling, holding that easements for maintenance and operation of a railroad do not
include use of the easement for public recreational trails, that the easements were abandoned at
the time the rails were removed, and that the federal government engaged in a "taking" of the
owners' property by approving the conversion of the rail easement into a public trail.16
The Court of Appeals' decision is significant to the Stahlbergs' potential takings claim in this
matter because it rejected the argument of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that federal
railroad law changes local property law by re -defining the rights of underlying property owners.
In addition, the Court of Appeals identified the "physical occupation" of property for a public -use
trail or park as a per -se taking for which the underlying landowners are presumptively entitled to
compensation." Moreover, the Court refused the DOD's argument that the conversion of the
original railroad use to a trail or park for public use was not a taking:
The taking of possession of the lands owned by the Preseaults for use as a public
trail was in effect a taking of a new easement for that new use, for which the
landowners are entitled to compensation.18
Likewise, in Toews v. United States, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming a
decision by the Court of Federal Claims, held that "it is elementary law" that if the government
uses or authorizes the use of an existing railroad easement for purposes and in a manner not
allowed by the terms of the original easement, it has taken the landowner's property for the new
use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.19
16Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed.Cir. 1996).
"Id. at 1537-40. The court distinguished "regulatory takings" in which compensation
claims are far more difficult to establish.
18Id. at 1550, citing Lawson v. State, 107 Wash.2d 444, 730 P.2d 1308 (1986)(en
banc)(Where the particular use of an easement for the purpose for which it was established
ceases, the land is discharged of the burden of the easement and right to possession reverts to the
original land owner or to that landowner's successor.)
19Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed.Cir. 2004).
June 15, 2018
Page 9
In Toews the railroad's easement for a right-of-way across the Toews' property, like the easement
across the Stahlbergs' property, provided that if the railroad company permanently discontinued
the use of the railroad the land and rights of way "shall at once revert to the undersigned"
landowner.20 The DOJ argued that under California law the use of an easement could vary over
time without its elimination. Upon analysis of the underlying state law, which it found to be
narrower than suggested by the DOJ, the Court of Appeals concluded that its argument stretched
too far:
Applying that narrow theme to the case before us, it is clear that under the rule as
it is applied in California a public transportation easement defined as one for
railroad purposes is not stretchable into an easement for a recreational trail and
linear park for skateboarders and picknickers, however desirable such uses may be
for these linear strips of land. The Government has the legal power and is thus
free to impose such new uses upon the fee interests held by the adjacent
landowners. But the private property interests taken are not free; the Government
must pay the just compensation mandated by the Constitution.21
In Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, an 8-to-1 United States Supreme Court rejected a
claim by the United States to ownership of an abandoned railroad right-of-way in Wyoming. It
held that where the railroad company owned only an easement for railroad purposes, and the
railroad company abandoned the easement, the easement "disappeared" leaving the owner of the
underlying property with full, unencumbered ownership of that property:
The essential features of easements — including, most important here, what
happens when they cease to be used — are well settled as a matter of property law.
[citing Restatement (Third) of Property; Servitudes Sec. 1.2(1) (1998)] "Unlike
most possessory estates, easements ... may be unilaterally terminated by
abandonment, leaving the servient owner with a possessory estate unencumbered
by the servitude." [citing Restatement Sections 1.2 and 7.4] In other words, if the
beneficiary of the easement abandons it, the easement disappears, and the
landowner resumes his full and unencumbered interest in the land."
21 Toews, 376 F.3d 1371, 1379.
22Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, US , 134 S.Ct. 1257, 1265 (2014).
Emphasis added.
June 15, 2018
Page 10
Claims brought by landowners under the Tucker Act alleging "rails -to -trails" takings are
compensable under a federal Judgment Fund established by Congress as a separate
appropriation.23 Thus, as a matter of federal takings law, it is the federal government, not the
trail proponent which must bear the burden of paying compensation to a landowner when a rail
easement is converted to a trail easement.24 Nevertheless, the DOD's position in Toews suggests
a cautionary note to a trail "proponent" such as the City in this matter. As noted above, both the
City's request for a Notice of Interim Trail Use filed with the STB and the STB's order extending
the term of the NITU contain a broadly -worded commitments by the City under which it assumes
"full responsibility"
for any legal liability arising out of the transfer or use of (unless the user is
immune from liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad against
any potential liability) ... the right-of-way owned by BNSF Railway and operated
by Mission Mountain Rail/WATCO.
Although the taking involved in this case will fall initially on the federal government, it is
certainly within reason to expect that the DOJ, as it did in Toews, will seek to shift to Kalispell
any liability for compensation payable to the Stahlbergs. The italicized portion of the City's
request letter as well as the STB's extension order appear to give the DOJ a legal basis for doing
so.
In summary,
1. The Stahlbergs do not agree that upon removal of the tracks from their property
there will be any continuing easement which can be transferred to the City. The two-
phase project described in the historic preservation and TIGER grant agreements and in
the BNSF Petition for Exemption does not involve any restoration or reconstruction
component as required by Section 8(d), but is in substance an exchange of existing track
right-of-way for a new rail park. Thus, Section 8(d) does not pre-empt state law
concerning the effect of track removal. When the tracks are removed, the easement
23Preseault, 494 U.S. 1 at 14.
24See, e.g., Toews, 376 F.3d 1371 at 1381-82 in which the Court of Appeals rejected the
DOJ's argument that the City of Clovis, California was responsible to pay compensation to the
affected landowner because it had exceeded its authority under the relevant NITU. "When the
Federal Government puts into play a series of events which result in a taking of private property,
the fact that the Government acts throug a state agent does not absolve it from the responsibility,
and the consequences, of its actions."
June 15, 2018
Page 11
terminates.
2. If the City assumes control of the existing railroad right-of-way, the Stahlbergs
are entitled to compensation for the value of their property as unencumbered by a new
trail easement less the value as encumbered because the conversion of a railroad right-of-
way to a public trail and park system is a compensable "taking" under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States constitution. The City is potentially liable to pay that
compensation.
3. If the City is willing to release any claim to ownership of the railroad right-of-
way across their property, the Stahlbergs are willing to donate a trail easement in a
location and on terms mutually acceptable to them and to the City. If they reach an
agreement they will make no claim for compensation.
Please let me know when the City is able to meet with me and the Stahlbergs. I look forward to
working with the City to resolve this matter in the best interests of everyone involved.
Sincerely,
RAMLOW & RUDBACH, PLLP
James M. Ramlow
Enc.
CT-19462 CAtazan's Title
UITCLAIN DEED
THIS INDENTURE, made the rot
between BURLINGTON N-AMERN P.Ar�,TNY �fo . 19, .
Northern Inc.j, a Delaware corporation, Grantor, and GGLACIER PARK COMPANY. a
Delaware corporation, of 1011 Western Avenue, Suite iatt'te, Washirgkan
98104, Grange, DO, Se
WITNESSETH: That the said Grantor, for Ten and 401100 Dollars ($10.00)
and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid by the said Grantee,
`7 the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in confirmation of and
pursuan., to, the Asset Transfer Agreement and Deed dated as of Nay 26, 1988
h between Grantor and Grantee, does convey, remise, release and forever
quitclaim, without any covenants of warranty whatsoever and without recourse
'to the Grantor, its successors and assigns, unto the said Grantee, and to its
successors and assigns, all its right, title and interest, if any, in the
following described real estate, situated in the Courty of flathead and State
Of Montana, more particularly describrul on Exhibit "Fri attached hereto and
wade a part hereof, together with all after acquired t'ltle of Grantor therein.
RESERVING, however, unto he said Gr, -,:tor,
ty right, its successors and assigns, a
railroad easement including the 9 , 130ivilege and easement to construct,
maintain, repair, renew, use, operate! aver, rep=ace or remove railroad tracks,
drainage facilities and appurtenances thereto in, along, over, upon or across
i that portion of the premises herein conveyed, as shown shaded on the
attached Exhibit "B" and by this reference made a part hereof.
s
t^,f TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement for so long as the same is used or
required for railroad purposes and until said Grantor, its successors or
assigns, shall remove all such facilities from the said premise, with the
intent to abandon said easement. Upon such removal with the intent to abandon
said premises, the easement created hereby shall immediately ten<<inato without
further action by Grantor or Grantee. Grantee may, at any time afcer. the
termination of the easement created hereby, record an affidavit of termination
in the public records to conclusively evidence the termination of the
easeme:at.
# ' t It E,A,"'�tiyo
s,ar
F ff14
w..
i I:•':• •l�at -' n
��ti�d'c�asi�R�
�MK,N,4tM�'
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD C014PANY
BY — ----�
Director - Title Services
ATTEST:
BY
nsta e s
Assistant Secretary
0
Y
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
COUNTY OF KING
On this ,f� *t� day of s , 19 before me, a notary Public,
personally appearesi J. N. 11 a and a D. WeTis, kloan to me to be the
Director Title Services and Assistant Secretary, respectiv-ely, of the
corporatic o that executed the within instrument and acknow;edged to aye that
Tuch corpora t i on executed the same.
This instrument was drafted by:
Glacier Nark Company
Title Services Department
.1-911 Vestern Avenue, Suite 700
►cattle, Washington 98104
►17N: RUSSELL T. LUG
(206) 467-5524
RETURN TO THE ABOVE AFTER
RECORDING.
u c '-
14y commission expires:
.eo Z
dr
S � ,
sir
Cn
"r • \ r
low
S!A T
tctt�a��'►�`
---- -—�..a�•�r.,rfMttq D�f.�liA:'sTw�. e•�—�•.car_,� ,�•
r s i •• -
EXHIBIT •A"
All that portion of Burlington Northern Railroad Gown 's fanaerl
Great Northers, RailwayC g y
Kalispell, any s) 400.0 foot wide Station 6'ryour,diPr'operty at
pe , Montana, being 300.0 feet Northerly of and 100.0 feet SOutheriy of
said Railroad Company's Culuwbi4 Falls to Marion Branch Line plain Track
ce,nterline, as now located and constructed upon, over and across tl,e SWj of
Sanction 7, TUN, R21W, M.P.M. , Flathead County, Montan.:, dying between t
hest line of Fifth Avenue, according to the recorded plat thehe
thereof, end a line 84.E feet
centerline; ,
E drawn at right angles to said Hain Track centerline distant 10
Easterly the West line of said Section 7as measured along said Main Track
Tl:T hereinabove described parcel being a portion of the same premises
roireye+d flu-cl the Kalispell Townsite Company to the St. Paul, Mirneapolis and
Nay"itoba Rat NZY Cowan!' by Deed dated August 2s, 189i, and ;,"ed f,2r record
in Flathead County af• i:-_tober 3, 1892, in Book 4 tf Deeds, Page 472.
t.
List i 3
Sequence # 1173
10A.3C.3/1173
r'+ii iY.c � f {;+ �x . 7: • •"r"`',.+••i+V�.�:r.,7:.-AF �:i.'�+r,�
4 an+h,+C�ylL•+l:i.:::.. :.• . ...ri�.n:-:r•'-:.}
++t;rj ,k..,�. r:;l.;-. + .r 'y,.. .h. •.- ... ••,twr. ti
'r'4"v zip? .�_t" .t. •3:�r.ti.r
.a „f:. . .4. �,t-. yj ,i• ..•r Y• :r� n,;at:t�` V
'ityy'�.�.S•.L.:: 'i-r:,"..�•,_ :1: •: �•rT r•�-+.�i Y�r �w�jgd� �
r Y'-•�J�yf'•y:y.'fy,:1�i••%4-�.!,i,i='•.'s+'r.i::._...%?!A1 `4
(i Hiy . 5..;.j�l,_�4; 7Lf_:-'-�'Y irye '7t,.Y•r ...y�c
. (;,7{i •:: .. •",7Ji r:liL i�T ^L !1:':i .` �%p ,.11::i •..\<:..` SC' � '
_ -SEC.7 i
Esc.
i
1�
RETURN TO;
It
r
S9126. AP190
• 28 iJ., it. 21 W.
Glacirm Park Co. _µ_
lull 't,tern Ave., Suit 700
Seatt - -' , WA 98104
MMM TQACK LASLMIMM-r
iZES!'f 12VEp
PLATUE, 0 CD.# MOW-rAWA
EXHIBIT 14k3'
SCAM : I " • 2cid
ow -
DATE,. t OvF-Meyrmp- %,Rem
STATE OF HO :ANA,
ss
County of F. >thw-d
Recordivi ;:t r j of
Yc^,•u 11 '
st
this dc� day o= .19 at _ Id!l& _ o'clock,4m and recordev'."In
the records of Fla-ead County, State of Montana. ;I
ee $-A,I Pd. = -e. r
EPT10K N0. 8912SAVO Flath County Clerk _order
TO
,;.t �,hr�f ��::-.'F;'• Syr �s::'i•�"�hj.•�,