PUBLIC HEARINGS

Staff reported that the initial complaint on the property came in on January 8, 2001. An initial inspection of the property was done on that same day. After the inspection, a certified letter with a 90-day time period was sent to the owner of record. On January 9, 2002, another inspection of the property was done, photographs were taken, and a "Notice of Public Hearing" was mailed certified and posted on the property. An ownership and encumbrance report was ordered on January 14, 2002. Attempts were made to contact the owner, but the owner did not respond. It was Staff's recommendation that Resolution 9206 be adopted so that the nuisance abatement could be carried out.

The public hearing was opened by Mayor Gray. There being no one to speak for or against Resolution 9206, Mayor Gray called for a motion.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9206.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The effective enforcement of parking regulations is required if the controlling principles associated with any parking program are to be protected. Customary parking enforcement efforts have proven to be insufficient in deterring constant offenders who ignore the initial ticket and the notices sent when citations are 10 days and 30 days delinquent. Staff contended that the selective and infrequent use of the immobilization device or boot, would deter individuals from ignoring parking tickets and ensure that chronic violators of parking regulations be held responsible for citations issued against them.

Initially, the use of the "boot" will enable the City to recover some revenue. However, in the long run, 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.

Mayor Gray opened the public hearing. Those speaking in opposition to the Ordinance were as follows:

Clayton M. Braden, 2708 4th Avenue NW, stated that this would be a one-sided ordinance. Mr. Braden asked if there would be any provisions for damages should a vehicle be "booted" erroneously. He ended by stating that he believed there has to be another way.

Mayor Gray asked if anyone else wanted to speak against this Ordinance. There being no one else to speak, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing and called for a motion.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2815.

Mayor Gray called for discussion. Sunday Rossberg, citizen in the audience, stated, in her opinion, this ordinance would enable City staff to unlawfully seize property. She explained that with parking tickets, defendants do not have a "day in court" to plead innocent or guilty. She added that this ordinance will discourage people from coming downtown and that she would challenge the legality of it if the Commission adopted it.

Steve Gillespie, 109 5th Street North, concurred with Ms. Rossberg. He reiterated that people receiving parking tickets do not have a day in court to plead to the ticket.

Greg Madsen, Business Improvement District, stated he had concerns about the ordinance and requested the Commission table action on it. He suggested that this ordinance had a negative connotation and that it should be brought forward with other ideas of a more positive nature that would influence the parking program downtown.

Mayor Gray asked for discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Beecher asked how many notices were sent to parking violators. Mike Rattray stated that for each parking ticket, the owner of the vehicle receives not only the ticket, but 2 additional letters. This translates to each violator receiving up to 15 notices of some type before a "boot" would be applied.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz asked if this ordinance had been in place before. Mr. Laforest explained that Staff was not aware of an ordinance that may have been repealed. Mr. Rattray added that in the past the parking enforcement agency applied a "barrel" to a vehicle that was intended to serve the same purpose as the "boot" but could be cut off.

Commissioner Hinz asked what the chances were of a boot getting put on the wrong car. Mr. Laforest responded saying that there were a series of checks and balances in the procedures developed by staff. However, although intentions were the greatest, systems were not always foolproof and there is a chance a mistake could be made.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz asked what other communities did. Mr. Laforest stated that several communities in Montana have a "booting" program.

Commissioner Beecher asked if people who have a parking ticket can appeal it or "have their day in court." City Attorney Dave Gliko stated that yes, people with parking tickets could plead not-guilty and schedule a hearing. He added that there was as much as 30 years of litigation history regarding this type of proposed program that incorporated due process and public protection. He stated that the proposed ordinance was patterned after those court decisions.

Commissioner Hinz asked if the intent of the ordinance was to generate revenue. Mr. Laforest stated that it would generate some revenue, but the intent was to hold people accountable.

Mayor Gray stated he was not troubled by Ms. Rossberg's comments. The intent of the ordinance was to address chronic offenders who refused to pay parking fines.

He was, however, concerned about Mr. Madsen's comments. He explained that the parking program was at the request of the businesses downtown to discourage employees from using the best parking spots in front of the businesses. Mr. Madsen replied that there needed to be an education element because people see this ordinance as just another layer of bureaucracy to keep patrons from the businesses in the downtown area. He agreed with the focus and intent of the ordinance, he was merely concerned with its timing.

Ms. Rossberg stated that it sounded like the City was going to target a certain group of people to apply the boot to. Mr. Laforest reiterated that the boot will be applied to vehicles based only on the number of unpaid parking tickets that are tied to a specific vehicle.

There being no further discussion, Mayor Gray called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0.
 

OLD BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

When the immobilization of a vehicle was determined to be valid and justified, a $25 "booting" fee is to be paid for the release of the vehicle. All "booting" fee revenue will be deposited into the General Fund.

Great Falls Police officers can immobilize ("boot") any vehicle that is parked in a City parking space located in the downtown residential district, the parking meter district, or any off-street pay-to-park facility/lot, and for which there are five (5) or more parking tickets that are unpaid/delinquent 30 days or more.

Similarly, police officers will remove a boot upon payment of the immobilization fee and payment of all overdue and unpaid parking tickets. The owner(s) or others who reasonably appear to have an interest in the immobilized vehicle are entitled to request a hearing to contest the validity of the immobilization. The hearing(s) will be in accordance with the procedures established in OCCGF 10.50.040 and 10.50.050. When applicable, the booting fee may be paid in the form of a refundable bond pending the outcome of any hearing.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9199.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Analysis of the Special Improvement District (SID) Revolving Fund and Subsidiary Debt Service Funds show that one (1) SID subsidiary fund had cash available to partially repay a loan from the SID Revolving Fund.

The projected June 30, 2002, SID Revolving Fund balance will be $434,744. This is $391,869 above the minimum balance required by State Statute, and $119,646 below the amount allowed by IRS Arbitrage Standards related to maximum debt service reserves. Staff stated this balance provided adequate reserves within the SID Revolving Fund.

Existing SID policies, along with retained SID debt service and revolving fund balances, will continue to provide exceptional security for the City's SID bonded debt.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9208.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Staff determined it was advantageous to split the water and sewer funds for debt issuance purposes, to refund the 1992 and 1996 water and sewer bonds with a new issuance, and to fund the construction of improvements to the wastewater treatment plant with funds from the State Revolving Fund.

Splitting the funds would make it easier to account for existing debt, facilitate issuance of future debt, and more clearly define debt obligations of water and sewer. Refunding the 1992 and 1996 bonds would save the City at least $65,000 annually in debt payments. Using funds from the State Revolving Fund would provide the most competitive rate (less than 4.5%) available for financing the new construction loan.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9216.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

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

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CITY MANAGER

CITY COMMISSION

PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT