PUBLIC HEARINGS

Staff proposed Ordinance 2807 in order to add Section 17.09.520 to the OCCGF to add a definition for 'wind-powered generator'; add a new Chapter 17.79 Supplementary Regulations; and add a new Section 17.79.010 providing standards for wind-powered generators.

The Community Development Department received inquiries about placing wind powered electric generators in the City. At present, the City has no standards for wind generators, nor for any other structure of this nature. Also, there was no definition of the term "wind powered generator." Staff conducted basic research on wind powered generators as to what operating requirements and potential hazards were associated with them so that appropriate regulations could be drafted. Generally, the mounting height of the turbine must be 30 feet above any obstruction within 280 feet to prevent turbulence. The two main hazards associated with the generators was blade failure (the blade can actually separate from the turbine assembly and become a projectile) and tower failure (falling tower). Staff also consulted with a local dealer/installer who recommended some guidelines based on actual experience.

Based upon the research conducted, staff concluded that wind powered generators were not suited for lots of less than one-half acre in size. This meant that they should not be permitted within most residential areas of the city. Because different makes and models of generators have different characteristics and because every installation was at least somewhat unique, some regulations could and should be variable as opposed to uniform. Staff recommended the setback be seven times the blade diameter or two times the turbine mounting height, whichever was greater. This requirement addresses both types of potential hazards.

Staff further concluded that generators could be effectively regulated as accessory uses in commercial and industrial districts with standards such as those stated previously, but in residential districts a Conditional Use Permit would be required. This allows residential installations to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and because each make and model of generator has different noise levels, it afforded the City the opportunity to ensure that noise standards would be met.

The City-County Planning Board opened a public hearing on the proposed code amendments on June 26, 2001. Issues including safety provisions for towers, aesthetics, and the need for an engineer with expertise in tower design and installation to review the proposed standards were raised during the public hearing.

Staff added language to address safety and aesthetics and attempted to contact someone qualified to comment on the proposed standards from a structural engineering standpoint. Staff also met with the Community Development Director and Building Official to determine what permits and certifications would be required by the City. Anyone proposing to erect a wind powered electrical generator within the city limits would be required to obtain a building permit and an electrical permit. Most manufactured towers are sold as kits that must then be assembled and installed by the home or business owner, or by a licensed contractor. Manufactured tower kits (such as those for ham radio) usually have a manufacturer’s certification as to their structural integrity, at least for wind loading and seismic activity. That certification would be accepted by the City. In the event a manufactured tower did not have such a certification, the Building Official would require an engineer to provide certification. In any event, the City would require an engineered foundation upon which to mount any such tower. The electrical permit and inspection would be required to ensure that the inter-tie was properly installed and that shorting danger is avoided.

Since the first reading of the Ordinance, staff received additional verbal and written comments that needed to be evaluated. Since the intent of the proposed ordinance was to provide opportunities to use wind generation in Great Falls and not to restrict its use, Staff requested that the City Commission continue the public hearing until October 2, 2001, in order to give them the time they needed to evaluate the new information.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission continue the public hearing for Ordinance 2807 to October 2, 2001.

Henry Lindgren, 2120 8th Avenue North, offered his assistance in drafting the ordinance.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

On September 13, 1999, a razing permit was issued to S & V Logging, Inc. for razing of the Big Sky Feed Mill located on Burlington Northern Railroad right-of way, located behind 601 8th Avenue North. The razing permit was issued for a time frame of 180 days. However, the razing permit became null and void since construction was suspended and/or abandoned for a period of 180 days after work commenced.

On May 16, 2000, a certified letter was sent to S & V Logging stating that Community Development received numerous complaints concerning the unsightly appearance and dangerous nuisance of the Big Sky Feed Mill. Jay Parrott, Code Enforcement Technician, contacted Staubach Global Services the management company responsible for the leasing of Burlington Northern property on July 17, 2001. Fred Wagner, regional manager for Staubach, was contacted by telephone and was advised by Mr. Parrott that the City was going to contact S & V Logging concerning the nuisance on their property and that an abatement process was going to be initiated. Mr. Wagner agreed with this action and offered to help. He asked that Mr. Parrott contact the Road Master for Burlington Northern in Great Falls, Bill Bernard, and advise him what was taking place.

On July 23, 2001, Mr. Parrott contacted Bill Bernard and advised him of the abatement process. Bill Bernard asked that he be kept informed as to when the razing would take place. On July 24, 2001, Steve Blaineo (S & V Logging) met with Community Development Director Mike Rattray and Jay Parrott. Mr. Blaineo stated he would be starting on the project the next day (July 25, 2001). Mr. Rattray advised Mr. Blaineo that if he could not perform the razing in a timely manner that the abatement process would be started and carried out and that he was to keep Mr. Parrott informed of his progress and plans. Mr. Blaineo said he understood and agreed. Mr. Parrott conducted a performance inspection of the subject property on July 25, 26, 27, and 30 and noted that no work or progress was observed. He advised Mr. Rattray of this and Mr. Rattray told him to start the abatement process.

Mayor Gray declare the public hearing open. Mr. Steve Blaineo spoke in opposition to the proposed Resolution. No one spoke in support. Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9184 and encouraged staff to work with Mr. Blaineo as much as prudently possible.

Commissioner Hinz asked how many complaints staff received. Mr. Rattray explained that the Community Development Department had received a half-dozen or so complaints.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

State law allows Fire Departments to set certain fees for specific services. For example, the responsible party of a hazardous materials incident must pay for all expenses relating to the response of the Fire Department. The Great Falls Fire/Rescue also allows other agencies to use the training facility located at 1900 9th Street South. In order to assist with the maintenance of the building, GFFD proposed to charge a nominal fee for each use. Several other charges listed in Resolution 9185 include: copy charges for Fire reports charges for CPR classes.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9185. Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Rosenbaum and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9185.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The Fiscal Services Department finalized the SLD maintenance cost estimate, which was reflected in Resolution 9165. These costs include utility cost, maintenance, and an administrative fee equal to 10% of estimated costs. The projected assessments for fiscal year 2001/2002 were based on charges on actual billings for the district and adjustments for cash balances from prior fiscal years.

In order to legally provide for the necessary assessment support, State laws require City Commission hearings and passage of authorizing resolutions. In accordance with Section 7-12-4329, M.C.A., publication of the Notice of Resolution for Assessment was made within 5 days preceding the Public Hearing.

Sections 7-12-4301 and 7-12-4333, M.C.A., authorize the City Commission to create lighting districts and to assess the costs of installing and/or maintaining the district to the owners of the property embraced within the boundaries of such districts.

For comparison of SLD annual assessments:

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one spoke in support of or in opposition to Resolution 9165. Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9165.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

This contract is for the fourth of a series of projects. This project will replace and improve approximately five blocks of the water system in Fox Farm Addition No. 4. Numerous breaks have occurred in this area due to corrosive soils and high ground water.

Unlike other contracts that have been awarded over the years, staff recommended that this contract not be awarded to the lowest bidder. Volk Sand & Gravel (Volk) submitted the low bid of $179,180. The performance of this contractor during the Central Avenue & 3rd Avenue North Water Main Replacement Projects (O. F. 1277) was substandard. It was the opinion of staff that performance would not improve on the Coyote project, and could actually get worse. State law was researched and allows the City Commission to bypass the low bidder and award to the next lowest bidder.

It has been City policy for many years to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. In this way, the City normally pays the most economical price for construction services. The process encourages competition among contractors and fostered a pool of qualified contractors.

Staff recommended that the City Commission award this contract to the second lowest bidder (United Materials) rather than the low bidder (Volk Sand & Gravel) for the following reasons:

1. Important contract requirements of the Central Avenue and 3rd Avenue North project were not met. As of September 4, 2001, the contract was 26 days past the 90-day (plus 3 weather days extension) limit. Another 7 to 21 days may be needed to reach substantial completion. Volk blamed these delays on a larger than expected number of curb boxes and water service line replacements. However, these were not critical path items, since they are normally installed by an auxiliary crew. As a further counter to this argument, four blocks of concrete under-pavement were found not to be needed, and the storm drain portion of the contract was deleted. The arguments of 'changed conditions' and 'increased project scope' were not valid.
2. Adequate equipment was a contract requirement. Key pieces of equipment have been moved on and off the projects continually. Progress was hampered by frequent lack of haul trucks, compactors, and a backhoe. Pavement equipment sometimes stood idle on site for weeks, but was unavailable when streets were ready for paving.
3. Employees supplied to the job must have appropriate construction experience. The two best pipelayers did have some experience, but both quit and have not been replaced. The remainder of the crew is inexperienced, so City personnel had to instruct/coach the crew on basic construction techniques. A similar lack of experience existed on the paving crew. The Volk supervisor has some experience, but was frequently not on site. With inexperienced crewmen, this absence further slowed progress, as the crew was further lost without effective supervision.
4. Some neighborhood disruption was expected during this type of work, but slow progress resulted in prolonged inconvenience for area residents. The first blocks of 3rd Avenue North were closed for 55 days. The first two blocks of Central were closed for 30 days. Fortunately, this area is served by alleys and streets, which provided alternative access for most residents. Even after the avenues were reopened, many weeks have been needed to correct driveway problems and damage caused by construction.
5. The contract time for Coyote Court is 45 days. Since water main work and paving are both temperature sensitive, the project must be completed prior to winter shutdown. If water main work is not completed, temporary water service (which can freeze) would have to be maintained until spring. If road pavement and cleanup are not complete, muddy roads will have to be used. This neighborhood has no alley access and has dead end cul-de-sacs, so the only way to minimize disruption is rapid project completion.

A recent Montana Supreme Court ruling (Debcon, Inc. v. City of Glasgow and Delta Engineering, Inc., 2001 MT 124) restated a long history of case law that the term "lowest responsible bidder" does not refer to pecuniary (financial) ability only, and includes "judgment, skill, ability, capacity, and integrity" as well. Therefore, the City could reject the low bidder and award the contract to the next lowest bidder who demonstrated such skill of "judgment, skill, ability, capacity, and integrity".

Although Volk showed some improvement in the last month, their rate of progress was still disappointingly slow. No improvement was predicted. Staff felt that it was in the best interest of the City and the neighborhood around Coyote Lane to award the project to United Materials. United has a proven record of delivering quality projects in a timely manner, and has demonstrated that it has the "judgment, skill, ability, capacity, and integrity" to do quality work. Recent examples of this expertise include the 10th Avenue South Roadway and Utilities Reconstruction; Central Avenue West Roadway and Utilities Reconstruction; 6th Street NW Water Main Replacements; and several Community Development Block Grant projects that included street and utility replacement. United has an experienced crew available that can start the Coyote Court project during the second week of September.

This project was part of a continuing improvement program to replace deteriorated water mains in many areas around the City. Water main breaks have damaged the roadway and disrupted water and sewer service to local residents. This project, will replace approximately 2200 lineal feet of deteriorated ductile iron pipe. Other improvements will include the installation of new fire hydrants and pavement improvements.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission award a contract in the amount of $209,194 to United Materials of Great Falls, Inc., for the Coyote Court & Coyote Lane Water Main Replacement (OF 1244) and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.

Richard Kavulla, 725 49th Street, encouraged the Commission to award the contract to someone other than Volk Sand & Gravel. He explained that he owns a business on Central Avenue which was severely impacted due to the water main project Volk Sand & Gravel was hired to do.

Commissioner Hinz asked how often staff has recommended the Commission not award a project to the low bidder. Public Works Director Jim Rearden stated he does not remember this happening before. City Manager John Lawton concurred stating that this underscored the fact that Staff does not take this lightly.

City Attorney Dave Gliko reiterated that the Commission may reject the lowest bidder if the next lowest bidder demonstrated the necessary skill of judgement, skill, ability, capacity and integrity.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

As required by State Statutes, the Great Falls Business Improvement District developed and presented a Work Plan and Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2001/2002. The City Commission conducted a public hearing and approved the Work Plan and Proposed Budget at the July 17, 2001, Commission Meeting. As in prior years, the assessment requested for 2001/2002 was based on the assessment formula approved with the creation of the district, which will generate $145,440 in assessment revenue. The 2001/2002 assessment per lot was indicated on the assessment projection summary incorporated in the attached resolution.

The Business Improvement District was created in 1989 and recreated in 1999 by petition of the property owners in the district. Assessments are levied upon properties in the district to fund the B.I.D.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9166.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz stated that she would abstain due to a perceived conflict of interest with her employment with the Downtown Business Association.

Motion carried 4-0-1 (Jovick-Kuntz abstaining).
 

Staff is moving forward with the issuance of water/sanitary sewerage debt in the amount of $13,400,000. Proceeds of the debt are intended to finance construction of a new solid's handling system, which will replace heat treatment with anaerobic digestion and subsequent de-watering, by centrifuges. The solids handling system is one of the wastewater plant’s key systems. The system is over 20 years old and needs to be replaced to reduce energy consumption, to provide better odor control, and to dispose of solids in a more environmentally sound manner.

Staff anticipated awarding construction bids this fall. Final financing should be completed in December of 2001, through the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC Drinking Water Revolving Loan Program, Series 2001). Adoption of this Resolution will serve as official recognition of the intent to reimburse related expenses for construction costs from bond proceeds.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9189.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission accept the Consent Agenda as printed.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Carol Sullivan, owner of the property located at 1612 9th Avenue S, requested a variance to OCCGF 17.09.460. The variance would allow construction of a front porch that encloses 100% of the house front instead of the 60% allowed by code.

OCCGF 17.09.460 requires that the depth of an enclosed porch can be no more than 9' into the front setback area, and the width can not exceed 60% of the house front.

The Board of Adjustment heard the request for the variance on August 23, 2001. At the hearing, staff reviewed the code and stated that as the house now sits, the front wall of the structure (except the pop-out section) was 36' from the front lot line. The required minimum front setback was 30'. Ms. Sullivan wanted to build an enclosed porch that would extend 4' into the front setback area (allowed by code), but the porch would enclose 100% of the house front. Also noted was the absence of any similar variances in the immediate area and the presence, in the 1700 block of 9th Avenue South, of an unenclosed porch covering less than 60% of the house front. Staff reported that three neighbors called supporting variance. Carol Sullivan presented her petition and described the enclosed porch. She said she considered the other design options that would have avoided the need for a variance, but felt that the alternatives resulted in wasted space and an unattractive house front. Four neighbors were present and voiced their support of the variance. The Board entered into discussion and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Jovick-Kuntz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the variance as recommended by the Board of Adjustment.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CITY COMMISSION

ADJOURNMENT