JOURNAL OF COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS
August 2, 1994

Regular City Commission Meeting

Mayor Morris Presiding

CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL: City Commissioners present: Gayle Morris, Joan Bennett, Bob Deming, Vicki Everson and John Gilbert. Also present were the Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Directors of Public Works, Finance, Park & Recreation, Fairgrounds, Fire Chief, Police Chief, and City Clerk.

If approved, Ordinance 2671 rezones the incorporated portion of Sand Hills Park from "A" Residence Use District to "C" Residence Use District. The involved property is located immediately east of the intersection of 16th Avenue South and 23rd Street South. The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate the City entering into a land trade permitting Talcott Construction, Inc., to develop a 48 unit multi-family project on said property.

Mayor Morris declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or in opposition to Ordinance 2671. Mayor Morris closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Everson moved, seconded by Commissioner Deming, that the City Commission accept the application of 12 Zoning Factors labeled as Exhibit "E" and adopt Ordinance 2671 on final reading.

Motion carried 5-0.

In order to legally provide for the necessary assessment support, State law requires the City Commission to conduct a public hearing and passage of an authorizing resolution. Staff proposed that the Portage Meadows Maintenance District assessment for fiscal year 1994/95 remain at $9,120.00. This was the same as fiscal year 1993/94. The assessment for the average lot of 7,500 square feet would be approximately $81.15.

Mayor Morris declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or in opposition to Resolution 8650. Mayor Morris closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Bennett moved, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8650.

Motion carried 5-0.

In order to legally provide for the necessary assessment support, State law requires the City Commission to conduct a public hearing and passage of an authorizing resolution. The Staff proposed that the Boulevard Maintenance assessment remain at $268,558 which was the same as FY 1993/94. This results in an assessment for an average lot of 7,500 square feet of $57.75.

Mayor Morris declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or in opposition to Resolution 8651. Mayor Morris closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Deming moved, seconded by Commissioner Everson, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8651.

Motion carried 5-0.

In order to legally provide for the necessary assessment support, State law requires the City Commission to conduct a public hearing and passage of an authorizing resolution. Staff proposed the Street Maintenance District assessment for FY 1994/95 remain the same as FY 1993/94. The total dollar amount is $763,902.

Mayor Morris declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or in opposition to Resolution 8652. Mayor Morris closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Gilbert moved, seconded by Commissioners Bennett and Deming, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8652.

Motion carried 5-0.

OCCGF 8.32.350 requires the City Commission to adopt a resolution establishing rates as determined necessary to defray the costs of sanitation services for each fiscal year. Staff proposed the residential rates to increase by 5% to offset increases in collection and disposal costs.

Mayor Morris declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or in opposition to Resolution 8653. Mayor Morris closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Deming moved, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8653.

Motion carried 5-0.

Crop Growers Insurance, Inc. requested that the City of Great Falls offer for sale a parcel of land adjacent their existing property. The parcel was recently purchased from Trillium Corporation for additional space for the Police Department but could be made available to accommodate development opportunities.

On July 19, 1994, the City Commission set a public hearing for August 2, 1994. However, because an appraisal on the property had not yet been completed, Staff recommended the City Commission continue the public hearing until the appraisal process was completed.

Commissioner Everson moved, seconded by Commissioner Deming, that the City Commission continue the public hearing and authorize staff to re-advertise the public hearing upon completion of the property appraisal.

Motion carried 5-0.

On July 5, 1994, the City Commission passed and approved Resolution 8645 authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of SID 1271 bonds in the amount of $555,000. The sale was set and advertised for Tuesday, August 2, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. City staff conducted the bid opened with DA Davidson financial consultant representative also in attendance.

The Net Interest Rate for this 15 year SID bond issue is 5.7737%. An additional .5% will be added to the interest rate assessed to the property owners as approved in the Resolution of Intent.

Commissioner Bennett moved, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8660.

Motion carried 5-0.

The City Commission provisionally adopted the budget on June 21, 1994. Since then, the City received its Certified Taxable Valuation. Staff estimates each City mill will raise $57,607 in tax revenue, after allowance for delinquent collections.

Commission Gilbert moved, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8661.

Motion carried 5-0.

State law requires the City to set its annual tax levy, after final adoption of the budget, by resolution, on or before the second Monday of August each year. The City adopted its annual budget for FY 1994/95. The estimated Net City Mill value for 1994, is $65,410 and the estimated net City collective value per mill is $57,607.

The tax levy revenue requirements and proposed City Mill levies are:

Commissioner Deming moved, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 8662.

Commissioner Gilbert stated that if the County is successful with their lawsuit against the City to recover jail costs, the City taxpayers could see a 10% increase in their taxes.

Motion carried 5-0.

Mayor Morris enumerated Consent Agenda items as follows:

Commissioner Gilbert moved, seconded by Commissioner Deming, that the City Commission accept the Consent Agenda as printed minus Item #19.

Several residents addressed the City Commission regarding items 12 - 18. Those speaking were:

Roy Patte (3913 Wilkinson Lane) provided a summary of events and correspondence regarding the use of Wadsworth Park by the Skeet Club. Mr. Patte concluded that unlike other parks for public use, that when the softball game is over, the public can use the park. In Wadsworth Park, the public cannot enter the premises unless they are members of one of the groups leasing the premises. Those living around Wadsworth Park, cannot enter the park and use it. Mr. Patte stated that the park was deeded to the City for general park uses.

Susan Patte (3913 Wilkinson Lane) stated that in comparing copies of the leases with the Park Board minutes, she found several discrepancies. She pointed out that the Park Board approved a $200 rental fee for the Skeet Club. However, the lease agreement has only a $100 rental fee.

Secondly, the Park and Recreation Director mentioned many times that these are merely one year leases. However, the terms of the leases are for five years with annual renewals. Third, Mr. Wilkinson (a homeowner in the area) has complained about the noise caused by boating and snowmobile activity around Wadsworth Park lake. There have also been incidents when the lock on the gate has been gone. Mrs. Patte also indicated that on numerous occasions parties are held late at night around the lake.

Commissioner Deming asked Police Chief Jones if the police respond to Wadsworth Park even though it is located out of the City limits. Chief Jones indicated that the police can respond up to a five-mile radius of the City limits. Commissioner Deming then asked if the residents around Wadsworth Park noticed parties going on if they could call the Police Department. Chief Jones indicated that if a call was made, either the police or a sheriff deputy would respond.

Mrs. Patte asked for clarification regarding the park use. She stated that the deed specified "general park purposes". However, when several of her neighbors went to the park to enjoy it, they were asked to leave by some of the clubs. Mr. Sepich (Park and Recreation Director) explained that when the park became a problem area for people dumping trash and parties, several of the clubs began locking up the areas they leased from the City.

Les Risley (3927 Wilkinson Lane) asked why the City has not developed the park since it was deeded to them over one-hundred years ago. He stated that since the Skeet Club originally began operating in Wadsworth Park many homes have been built in that area. He concluded that the time has come for the Skeet Club to move to an area where there is fewer people.

Commissioner Deming asked if part of the master planning process for the parks included annexing Wadsworth Park into the City limits. Mr. Sepich stated that Wadsworth Park is owned by the City but it is currently not in the City limits.

Clyde Byerly (3425 7th Avenue South), President of the Missouri River Shooters Club, stated that the organizations leasing portions of Wadsworth Park are providing services to the City of Great Falls with respect to the park. He stated that some of the services include providing liability insurance, refuse collection, and public restrooms.

Morgan Leach (153 Riverview C), representative of the Water Warriors, stated that this group has to provide hours that they will be using a boat on the lake. He stated that the boat is used during early evening hours or on the weekends only.

Don Korcewski (Golden Triangle Sporting Dog Club) stated that they also use the pond area of Wadsworth Park.

Mayor Morris called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0.

The purpose of this project was to rehabilitate sewer mains in the Country Club and Montana Additions. Trenchless technology was chosen for this project because it allowed rehabilitation of the sewer mains at a competitive price without excavation. The sewer mains in these areas are in poor condition and failures have been common.

Bids were received July 6, 1994 with 2 bidders responding. P.E.C. was the lowest bidder. The rehabilitation methods that were specified for this project are unique for Montana, therefore, experienced contractors are rare. P.E.C. is inexperienced in these construction methods.

City Staff recommended P.E.C. be awarded the contract. Gelco, the other bidder, protested the award to P.E.C. on the grounds that P.E.C. did not meet the technical specifications and bid a different product than the specifications required. On the afternoon of August 2, 1994, the City Commission was served with a Writ of Mandamus from the Eighth Judicial District Court prohibiting the City Commission from awarding the bid to P.E.C. until after a full court hearing scheduled for September 1, 1994.

Mayor Morris introduced the item and stated that representatives from the City, P.E.C. and Gelco would all have an opportunity to make statements.

Mr. Erl Tufte, Public Works Director, reiterated Staff's position and recommended the City Commission award the contract to P.E.C. He stated that both processes that were bid will work and meet the objectives of the project. He added that City was obligated to select the low cost option. Mr. Tufte also stated that Staff is looking out for attempts by anyone eliminating competition in this industry. Mr. Tufte stated that Staff stands by their recommendation to award the bid to P.E.C. Mr. Tufte recommended the City Commission make a formal decision tonight because of the limited construction season and before additional failures of that system occur. He added that each failure is expensive and that it is important that the system be corrected as soon as possible.

Dave Gliko, City Attorney, overviewed the Commission's broad legal powers. He added that in doing additional research he came across the case Baker vs. the State of Montana. He stated that in this case it was decided that there is no Mandamus remedy available to an unsuccessful bidder. He added that the bid law provides for public protection of the taxpayer, not the unsuccessful bidder. Mr. Gliko suggested the Writ of Mandamus served by the District Court this afternoon was flawed in that Gelco is not a Montana taxpayer and that they did not show harm. However, Mr. Gliko stated he did not mean to suggest the Commission ignore the Court's order. He then highlighted the options available to the City Commission. Those options were: to award the bid to Gelco, to reject all bids and rebid the project, or to continue the process and appear to answer before the Court on September 1.

Mayor Morris called a recess at 8:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m.

Mike Young, Legal Counsel for Gelco, addressed the City Commission. He stated that the lawsuit was filed because they could see Staff's recommendation was against Gelco. He added that the essential reason for the lawsuit was economics. The principal problem is that Gelco was not being treated fairly. In fact, he suggested ,that City Staff questioned P.E.C.'s qualifications because Staff requested additional negotiations to ensure that adequate performance bonds are in place. The P.E.C. staff is inexperienced with this technology and did not meet the past performance specifications. Mr. Young added that specs cannot be changed after the fact. Mr. Young stated that he can appreciate Staff's willingness to have potential cost savings. However, on the technical aspects of the bid, Gelco wanted an opportunity to bid what P.E.C. bid. He added that by awarding the the bid to P.E.C. it was waiving specification requirements and not allowing Gelco to bid the same product P.E.C. bid.

Mr. Young indicated that an additional concern he had was the element where City staff stated that by awarding the bid to P.E.C. it helped to support a local (Montana) firm thus creating additional jobs in Great Falls. He stated that those concerns have no place in the evaluation of the bid.

Finally, Mr. Young responded to Mr. Gliko's point regarding the Baker vs. State of Montana case. He stated that Mr. Beck is a Montana taxpayer and that the Writ could be amended to reflect so.

Mr. Beck, Executive Vice-President of Gelco, stated that Gelco has done business in Montana for twenty-seven years. Gelco bid the specifications provided by the City of Great Falls. Their bid does not offer an alternative. It meets the requirements as stipulated. He added that Staff is now proposing to alter the specs that were provided. He stated that Gelco wanted the opportunity to bid the same thing that P.E.C. bid.

Mr. Robert Peccia, P.E., President-P.E.C. stated that the bid provided by them does meet specifications. He added that P.E.C. provided Staff with ample information regarding the process they planned to use.

Mr. Brian Rohan, P.E., AM-Liner Representative, provided information on the product proposed to be used by P.E.C. He added that many cities are using this product and that it works very well.

Mr. Paul Haffeman, legal counsel for P.E.C., stated that once the specifications were established, all discretion is not lost, not everything is set in stone. Mr. Haffeman stated that the deviation of the specifications by P.E.C. allows a better product than that specified by City staff. He concluded stating that in a Supreme Court case it was ruled that the Court should not intervene in the bidding process unless there is evidence of bad faith, fraud or corruption. He added that in this bid award, there is no evidence of any of those three elements.

Mr. Young reminded the City Commission that the "expert" P.E.C. is using is not a subcontractor. Mr. Rohan is not putting up a bond and cannot be held responsible for the project. Mr. Young stated that Mr. Rohan is merely giving advice. He reiterated that the purpose of the Writ of Mandamus was not to interfere with the discretion of the City Commission. However, Gelco wanted the opportunity to rebid the project with the same type of product P.E.C. proposed to use.

Commissioner Gilbert stated that as a Commissioner he was not happy about the Writ, that it meant, to him, he was not able to make a decision. Mr. Gilbert proposed that perhaps the parties get together with the City Commission, give each party the opportunity to make their best case to convince the Commission which was the better product, allow the Commission to hire a third party expert on this technology, and the Commission make a decision as to who would get the contract. He stated that a stipulation to this offer is that once the decision is made, it is binding and that Gelco drop the lawsuit.

Commissioner Bennett stated that the only reason the Writ was filed was becuase there had not been an opportunity to sit down and explore the issues face to face. She added that she assumes the offer on the table would be acceptable to both parties. Mr. Young stated that he would have to consult with his client before agreeing to this type of proposal.

Commissioner Deming encouraged the parties to get together to work it out. He stated his priority, as a Commissioner, is to protect the taxpayers. He added that the issues were time and money. He would vote to save time and money.

Commissioner Everson disagreed with Mr. Young that the City is "better off" because the Writ was filed. She concurred with Commissioner Gilbert's idea however, stated that a decision must be made within twenty-four or forty-eight hours.

Commissioner Gilbert moved, seconded by Commissioner Everson, that both parties have twenty-four hours to agree to the following: That each party will have three hours to present to the City Commission their best case for their process; that the City Commission hire a third party engineer to give technical advice to the Commission regarding the process; that Gelco drop the lawsuit; that the decision made by the Commission be binding; that barring acceptance to this offer, the City Commission postpones action on this decision until the next meeting pending advice from legal counsel.

Commissioner Everson stated she would abstain due to a potential conflict of interest.

After a brief discussion, Commissioner Everson called for the question. Motion carried 4-1 (Mayor Morris dissenting).

The terms of the proposed three year agreement, are from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1997. The economic impact is 2% for each of the three years. The 2% for FY 1995 will go on base wages. The 2% for FY 1996 and 1997 will be distributed as follows: 1.5% on base wages and .5% to go towards health insurance.

Commissioner Gilbert moved, seconded by Commissioner Deming, that the City Commission approve the labor agreement between the City of Great Falls and the City of Great Falls Public Employees Craft Council, and authorize the City Manager to execute said labor agreement.

Motion carried 5-0.

Staff proposed the City Commission approve a loan of up to $600,000 to CUC International for leasehold improvements. CUC International proposes to occupy the unused space in the old Sears Building. The interest rate would be a sliding scale ranging from 2 percent to 6 percent, depending on how many jobs are produced. If CUC produces over 250 jobs, the interest rate would be 2 percent over 7 years. This Commission action approves the concept and general terms of the loan agreement. A formal loan document will be presented to the City Commission for approval at a later date.

Commissioner Bennett moved, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, that the City Commission approve the Economic Development Loan proposal to CUC International of $600,000 with a sliding scale interest rate ranging from 2 percent to 6 percent based on the number of jobs CUC International creates during the seven year loan period.

Motion carried 5-0.

MSU Extension Service, with a grant from US West, is offering the Premier Fast Trac Program to the community. This program includes a series of three comprehensive courses designed to assist prospective and viable local entrepeneurs in being successful with starting or expanding their businesses, creating jobs for Great Falls. The Fast Trac program requested $3,000 in economic development funds from both the City of Great Falls and Cascade County to finance the local match for this program.

Commissioner Everson moved, seconded by Commissioner Deming, that the City Commission grant the request of MSU Extension for $3,000 from the City Commission's budget to assist in financing Fast Trac II.

Motion carried 5-0.

The Great Falls Area Labor-Management Committee is an outgrowth of the Vision 2000 process is a non-profit organization that has been active in the community for over three years. Through that process, the residents of Great Falls identified labor-management confrontation as being detrimental to the growth of the community.

The Great Falls Area Labor-Management Committee received a $63,000 grant from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service which is 75% of their 1994 operating budget. The grant requires a 25% match ($20,800) which must be raised locally. To date, they have raised $5,000 from the State of Montana, $5,000 from Cascade County, $1,000 from Montana Power, and approximately $4,200 in small donations for a total of $15,200.

In order to complete the match requirement, they requested a grant from the City of $5,000. Staff recommended that funding to accommodate the grant request be taken from the City Manger's contingency.

Commissioner Deming moved, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, that the City Commission approve the grant request from the Great Falls Area Labor-Management Committee in the amount of $5,000.

Motion carried 5-0.

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the regular meeting of August 2, 1994, adjourned at 10:06 p.m