PUBLIC HEARINGS

The owner of the property, located at 514 4th Avenue Southwest, was given sixty days from September 18, 2001, to obtain either a repair or razing permit. Neither a permit nor an appeal was filed for during the allotted time set by the Uniform Building Code. Proposals for razing the structure(s) were taken with the contract awarded to Austin Reid Demolition. Razing was completed on December 12, 2001.

Notification that a public hearing would be held on February 5, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of assessing said costs on the above-mentioned property was given to the property owner and published in the TRIBUNE on January 26, 2002.

Mayor Gray declared the Public Hearing open.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9203.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The owner of the property located at 1605 5th Avenue North was given sixty days from July 25, 2002, to obtain either a repair or razing permit. Neither a permit nor an appeal was filed for during the allotted time set by the Uniform Building Code. Proposals for razing the structure were taken with the contract awarded to Austin Reid Demolition on December 11, 2002. Razing was completed on December 21, 2002.

Notification that a public hearing would be held on February 5, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of assessing said costs on the above-mentioned property was given to the property owner and published in the TRIBUNE on January 26, 2002.

Mayor Gray declared the Public Hearing open.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9204.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

Limiting and metering parking in business districts helps facilitate commerce by promoting frequent turn-over for shopping, rather than commuter or long-term parking, as well as to generate revenue from the use of parking rights-of-way to enforce and maintain parking regulations. The city's standard enforcement practice includes issuing the initial ticket, the subsequent mailing of up to two delinquent notices, and, if needed, the eventual transfer of multiple violations to Municipal Court. Since March 1999, over $104,000 in unpaid parking tickets have been transferred to court and just under $42,000 has been recovered. Furthermore, as of January 22, 2002, the Parking Program's Multiple Ticket Report listed one hundred and five individuals with five or more tickets that were delinquent 30 days or more, cumulatively owing approximately $11,000 in unpaid parking citations. By not pursuing individuals who are guilty of legitimate parking infractions, staff accepted their demonstrated contempt for the enforcement or our parking ordinances while allowing thousands of dollars in revenue to go uncollected. Initially, the use of the "boot" would enable the city to recover some of the revenue. The use of the immobilization device will serve as a deterrent to parking scofflaws and continue to emphasize the parking program's objective of providing adequate on-street parking for shoppers and visitors.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2815, and set a public hearing for February 19, 2002.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

State law now allows local governments with code enforcement programs to adopt the most recent codes adopted by the State by administrative action. To do this, the local government must adopt an ordinance authorizing the adoption of a building code by administrative action containing at a minimum: (a) the type of codes which will be enforced; (b) the individual, identified by position title, who has the authority to sign the administrative action; and (c) whether the administrative action authority applies to discretionary provisions such as fee structures or the adoption of optional appendix chapters.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2818.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The upgrading of the High Plains Heritage Center facility will provide the Great Falls community with a visually appealing, cultural center, in the downtown historic and urban renewal districts.

As such it was felt this was a project that fits with many of the Commission goals.

The proposed commitment is conditional upon High Plains Heritage Center's submittal of a thorough and complete CDBG application in the current and next application years, 2003 and 2004 respectively. The center is eligible to apply under the auspices of historic preservation or accessibility to persons with disabilities. Therefore the center was encouraged to make application for CDBG funds in the current and next year for items such as:

1. Life safety items identified by the building official as high priorities back in 2000: a second exit from the building including protected stairways, signage and emergency lighting.
2. Automatic fire suppression system for all floors
3. Fire alarm system
4. Handicap accessible restrooms
5. Elevator for handicap access to upper floors.

If the projects are not recommended for funding through the CDBG allocation process, then other funding sources could be explored.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz that the City Commission Adopt Resolution 9209.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission approve the Consent Agenda as printed.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Lynne Haling and Trudy Rosenbaum's terms expired January 31, 2002. Two other members of the Council had resigned. Therefore the City Commission appointed four members to the CDC.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission reappoint Lynne Haling and Trudy Rosenbaum and appoint Mike Carlstrom and William R. Wiseman to the Community Development Council for three year terms through January 31, 2005.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CITY MANAGER

City Manager John Lawton provided a report to the City Commission about the status of contract negotiations between the City and IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters) Local #8. The contract between the two parties expired June 30, 2001 and the parties have reached "impasse". The next step will be a fact-finding process with the State of Montana Board of Personnel Appeals leading to Final and Binding Contract Arbitration to settle the contract. The process to settle this contract could take as much as twelve to eighteen months or more to resolve.

Mr. Lawton said that the parties have spent in excess of 80 hours in negotiation sessions since May of 2001. Agreement on a new contract has not been reached. There were several issues remaining unresolved as well as the economic package. Because firefighters are not allowed to strike by Montana Law, the process for contract resolution is provided in law and specifies fact-finding followed by Final and Binding Contract Arbitration.

Final and Binding Arbitration means that both sides will strike names of third party arbitrators from a list provided by the Board of Personnel Appeals until only one name is left. This trained arbitrator will hear both sides and make decisions to settle the contract that both parties must abide by. The final decision on this contract agreement will be made by the arbitrator, a person who does not live in this community or have any financial responsibility for the outcome.

Mr. Lawton explained that staff was reporting on this issue because of the consideration this has for developing a balanced 2003 budget. He listed the budgeting considerations as:

• The inability of the City to predict costs due to expected but undefined increases to wages and benefits.
• The unknown and extra costs the City must pay for including legal representation and one half the expenses of the arbitrator and process.
• The staff resources that must be expended which takes time and effort away from other priorities.
• The possibility of the City having to pay a large lump-sum amount if the arbitrator awards wage or benefit increases retroactive to July 1, 2001.
• The potential but unknown impact on the City's Mill Levy.

Mr. Lawton then asked Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton, to describe to the Commission the actual process leading to today.

Ms. Patton stated that it does not appear that resolution with IAFF #8 will be forthcoming during the budget development/adoption process.

She summarized the negotiation process that began in May 2001. The Union presented sixteen issues to bargain plus two requests for new language to be included in the contract with the City. The City presented 1 issue.

The City agreed to the first two Union issues. It was mutually agreed to drop the third item after much discussion. The fourth item was framed by the Union as "What can be done to improve the dispute resolution (grievance) process?" This issue was worked through the Interest Based Bargaining process and discussed for three full negotiation sessions. Agreement was not reached and the Union insisted on final and binding grievance arbitration as their favored solution. Agreement was reached on the one City issue.

The Union led the City to believe that if the economic package was good enough some of their other issues would go away. Negotiations then moved to economics. The Union presented options for one, two, three and four year contracts. The City team felt optimistic that agreement could be reached and made a proposal based on the items presented in the Union's four-year contract proposal. The City's first offer was rejected, the City made a second offer and the Union countered.

On Friday, August 24, 2001, the City presented its final economic offer to the Union. The offer was reviewed with the City Manager before it was presented and he agreed, with the assurances of the City team, that the contract with IAFF #8 could not be settled within the authorized overall 2% that was budgeted. The offer was determined unacceptable by the Union team.

Negotiations resumed on December 5, 2001. At this meeting the Union informed the City that final and binding grievance arbitration was now their number one priority; and that it would not consider any other solution to their stated interest of improving the dispute resolution process. The Union's firm position on this interest issue brought the two sides to impasse for contract negotiations.

The City explored one effort to settle all issues with IAFF #8 through the mediator. The City's motivation included that various ongoing issues with IAFF #8 were costly to the City in both legal fees and excessive amounts of administrative/management staff time. Also, the City was recruiting for a new Fire Chief and it would be desirable to bring a new chief on with these old issues resolved. The mediator reported to the City that the Union was not interested in discussing the offer.

Ms. Patton added that the next steps to settle this labor contract would involve a fact finding process with the Board of Personnel Appeals, and finally, final and binding contract arbitration.

Ms. Patton pointed out that again, City staff felt the economic offer made to the Union was generous and should not be increased. A recent market study of fire fighters' wages showed that IAFF #8 was at 101% of the market for comparable activities.

Ms. Patton stated that a full written report to the Commission was included in their agenda packet.

Commissioner Beecher asked if the Commission would have a dollar range to keep in mind during the budget process as far as a best case/worst case scenario regarding the contract negotiations. John Lawton stated that yes, a range would be given, but there were no guarantees.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz asked for clarification on the pay scale. Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton responded.

Mayor Gray voiced concerns about getting through the budget process. Again City Manager John Lawton said that a range would be given, but that there could be no guarantees of the exact impact to the General Fund.

Commission Hinz, asked City Manager John Lawton to once again explain how the Fire Department was operating without a contract in place. John Lawton again stated that by state law IAFF #8 continues to work under the terms of the expired contract until the process of final and binding contract arbitration is complete and the arbitrator's decision is rendered.

PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT