PUBLIC HEARINGS

Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton reported that on February 18, 2003, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 2843 which placed a six month moratorium denying the issuance of building or occupancy permits for gambling establishments and sexually oriented businesses within the City of Great Falls pending adoption of a Growth Policy and a Land Development and Zoning Code.

The Growth Policy was approved by the City Commission in May of 2003, and a consultant was under contract to prepare a unified Land Development Code. This code was expected to take several additional months to draft and be reviewed by the advisory committee and the community before being presented to the City-County Planning Board and the City Commission.

Initially, staff planned to have the portion of the new code relating to casinos completed by the time the moratorium expired. It now does not appear that the community would have adequate time to decide the various and complex issues involved with gambling businesses before the moratorium expired, so an interim ordinance was suggested.

The interim ordinance would disallow the placement of casinos on smaller, commercially zoned parcels in neighborhoods. If a casino proposed to locate on a parcel zoned General Commercial (GC) then the property must be in a district that was at least seven lots or 50,000 square feet in area. Also, casinos could not be located on parcels that were immediately adjacent to residential districts.

In summary, several development projects would be unable to proceed due to the moratorium on establishments that have a gambling component. Staff suggested that it was in the public interest to have interim regulations in place to allow the community to conduct business, while limiting any potential adverse impact, while the whole Land Development Code process proceeded to conclusion to the satisfaction of the community.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one spoke in support of Ordinance 2859. Those speaking in opposition to Ordinance 2859 were as follows: Douglas Palagi; 121 Riverview C. Mr. Palagi stated that he was concerned about what was driving the ordinance. He stated that it seemed to be the vocal minority and not the silent majority. Robert Haffner. Mr. Haffner echoed Mr. Palagi's concerns. Mr. Haffner also stated that he felt this had turned into a moral issue. Curtis Thompson spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Zollie Kellman. Mr. Thompson stated that there appeared to be no rational basis for singling out gaming / casino establishments, that the ordinance was motivated without regard and contrary to what should be the legitimate purpose of zoning, and that this ordinance may have an impact contrary to responsible zoning. Rhonda Carpenter stated that her concern was making sure that all businesses, not just businesses in the gaming / casino industry, be required to go before the Design Review Board if they were making alterations to the business. Ms. Carpenter also stated that much of the businesses that now bill themselves as casinos, have simply altered their advertising, not what was truly offered at the place of business. John Hayes, 619 Carol Dr. Mr. Hayes stated that the number of casinos in Great Falls seemed to be an issue. Mr. Hayes pointed out that many years ago a quota system was put into place. At this time due to the number of existing licenses, no new liquor licenses may be issued in Great Falls. While there are those that believe that new licenses are being issued it is a case of existing licenses being transferred either to a new location or to a new owner. George Gallagher also addressed the Commission. Mr. Gallagher asked if there was any solid evidence supporting the notion that new businesses were not coming to Great Falls because of the lack of liquor licenses available. Mr. Gallagher also asked if this ordinance would have an effect on the Town Pump in Fox Farm or the property located on the westside of Great Falls that had been purchased by the Kelmans. Mayor Gray stated that he would direct these questions to staff. Speaking from a neutral stance on Ordinance 2859 were Kendra Owen; El Paso Drive and Jerry Clark; 1014 Durango Drive. Both Ms. Owen and Mr. Clark stated that although they can appreciate the concerns of the businesses directly affected by the ordinance, they urged the Commission to approve Ordinance 2859.

There being no one further to address the City Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

City Manager John Lawton addressed Mr. Gallagher's questions by stating that it was staff's original assumption that the moratorium would be in effect until the new zoning codes were in place. However, the codes were not complete, and it could be quite some time before they were. In addition to the codes not being in place, business people have been addressing concerns to Mr. Lawton about not being able to make business decisions. Mr. Lawton stated that, in general, the concerns were about movement of existing licenses and that most full service restaurants that have a liquor license were going to want to be able to have a casino to help defray the cost of that liquor license. Mr. Lawton stated that the Interim Ordinance was brought to the Commission to address the accumulation of business concerns that had built up over the last six months.

Commissioner Beecher voiced concerns over the proximity to other specified uses portion of Exhibit A, specifically the property line to property line issue. Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton stated that Exhibit A could be amended to read: 1) A casino shall not be located closer than 600 feet to a public or private school, from kindergarten though twelfth grade, and 2) a casino shall not be located closer than 600 feet to a church or worship facility. These amendments were accepted by the Commission.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission approve Ordinance 2859 as amended.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

City Attorney Dave Gliko reported that on February 18, 2003, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 2843 which mandated a six month moratorium denying the issuance of building or occupancy permits for sexually oriented businesses in the City of Great Falls pending the adoption of a Growth Policy and a Land Development and Zoning Code. The Moratorium expired on August 18, 2003. Pending the adoption of a Unified Land Development Code, anticipated to be finalized on or before May of 2004, it was deemed necessary to adopt an interim zoning ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses to control the “secondary effects” generated by such businesses.

The analysis of “secondary effects” of sexually oriented businesses by Indianapolis, Indiana; Rochester, New York; and Denver, Colorado, provided convincing documented evidence that such businesses, due to their nature, had a deleterious effect on both the existing businesses around them and surrounding residential areas adjacent to them, caused increased crime and downgrading of property values; contributed to urban blight and downgraded the quality of life in adjacent areas.

It was the purpose of the proposed ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry; protect the citizens from increased crime; preserve the quality of life; preserve property values and character of surrounding neighborhoods and deter the spread of urban blight. It was not the intent of the proposed ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but to enact a content-neutral ordinance which addressed the “secondary effects” of sexually oriented businesses.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Speaking in support of Ordinance 2860 was Helen Hackett and Loren Keller. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. John Hayes spoke as a neutral party; however he had a concern that by not allowing the sale of alcohol on the premises it may allow minors to be present. There being no one further to address the Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2860 with the following amendments:
Amendment 1: That Subsection G of Section 17.95.050 read as follows: G. Should any use requiring distance separation voluntarily locate within a specified area of separation after a sexually oriented business has been granted an occupancy or building permit, the sexually oriented business shall not be required to relocate to maintain such separation.
Amendment 2: That Subsection B of Section 17.95.050 be amended to require a distance separation of 600 feet.

Motion carried 5-0
 

OLD BUSINESS

Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton reported that the City had been involved in discussions with City-County Health Department and residents of the Upper/Lower River Road area since 1996 concerning the significant groundwater and water quality problems experienced by the area. A water and sewer district was formed by the residents to determine the most cost effective method of correcting the situations and providing utility service.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlined a two phase approach to financing and installing water and sewer lines to be connected to City utility systems. Annexation to the City of Great Falls was proposed to be delayed until both systems are installed, but no later than December 1, 2007.

Estimated construction cost to the District was $5.8 million. The MOU proposed the City commit $1 million of CDBG funds to assist the low/moderate income residents of the district with their share of the costs of the utility extensions and that CDBG programs for owner occupied and rental rehab assist eligible properties with code improvements or utility service lines.

While Upper/Lower River Road area was not a part of the corporate limits of the City of Great Falls the area and its residents were part of our community. The serious public health situation facing the residents of the District justified City assistance in helping the residents correct the situation in a manner that was affordable.

Over the last several years the District investigated several ways to correct the lack of acceptable water and sewer service in the area. The most affordable alternative for the district property owners was to annex into the City of Great Falls and receive municipal water and sewer service.

The Board of Directors of the District had to secure landowners' approval to proceed with the financing the project. The Memorandum Of Understanding with the City of Great Falls proposed a variety of means of assistance that included:

1. Agree to allow connection to municipal utilities prior to annexation. Annexation would be delayed until the sewer and water lines were installed but no later than December 1, 2007.
2. Agree to two phases of construction. First phase to be water and the second phase to be sewer systems.
3. Agree to assist in meeting the financial burden of debt service for the system improvements by making best efforts to provide $1 million of CDBG assistance to the landowners that meet income eligibility requirements.
4. Agree to make available CDBG rehabilitation programs to assist in service line extensions or in meeting code deficiencies.
5. Agree that no service line be connected until the City received an annexation agreement from the property owner.
6. Agree to explore the legality of creating a tax increment -Urban Renewal District and pledge to capture 60 percent of any increment for district improvements.
7. Agree to postpone other typical annexation infrastructure improvements until funds were available or the debt satisfied.

The public health and safety issues of the area supported the City varying from its established policy of not allowing utility service without prior annexation and delaying certain annexation policies in regards to required infrastructure improvements. When annexation has been completed the City of Great Falls would receive additional tax base, increased population by some estimated 400 households, and increased development potential.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Upper / Lower River Road Water and Sewer District and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Mr. John Stevenson Love addressed the City Commission. Mr. Love stated that the Upper / Lower River Road Water and Sewer District Board had approved and signed the Memorandum of Understanding at their board meeting the night prior to this Commission meeting of August 19, 2003.

Motion carried 5-0
 

NEW BUSINESS

ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

Budget Officer Melissa Kinzler reported that staff received the taxable valuation for the City of Great Falls from the Department of Revenue. The proposed mill levy was 124.33 mills, which provided for: a 1.2 percent tax levy increase as allowed by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 15-10-420 for inflation; a 1.7 percent levy increase or 2 mill increase as allowed by MCA 15-10-420 for health insurance premium increases; and, normal tax revenue growth from the $1,041,336 in newly taxable property.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9317.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

City Attorney Dave Gliko reported that Resolution 9340 acknowledged and declared all “use variances” unutilized since 1990, or at all, to be abandoned and hereafter, to be of no force or effect.

When granted, “use variances” became a property interest of the grantee. Such property interests in “use variances” continued while the right was being exercised or until the same should be deemed abandoned because of nonuse. After a long and continuous period of time wherein the “use variance” right has not been exercised, such nonuse would be deemed a major, albeit controlling criteria of abandonment. Therefore, it was assumed that any previously granted “use variance” right which has not been exercised since 1990, or at all, must be deemed abandoned by the passage of time. Resolution 9340 affirmed such abandonment for public record.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9340.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Public Works Director Jim Rearden reported that the City of Great Falls was proposing to lease a cooking oil container from Baker Commodities of Spokane, Washington, at a cost of $30 per month. This container would be placed at the City of Great Falls Public Works Complex and would accept waste cooking oil from local small restaurants and private citizens for a fee of $1 per 5 gallons of oil disposed. This disposal service would benefit the City by diverting oils from the City sanitary sewer system, the solid waste division containers and the landfill.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Jovick-Kuntz that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9336.

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.
 

CITY MANAGER

City Manager John Lawton proposed that the City of Great Falls should position itself to purchase electricity in wholesale markets. Mr. Lawton reported that the City of Great Falls facilities use approximately 15 percent of the electricity in the community. Mr. Lawton further stated that as a large user, the City should leverage its own use to increase its purchasing power.

Mr. Lawton reported that the City's strategy would be to assemble a portfolio of power contracts by working with governmental power marketers such as the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and with our neighboring rural electric co-operatives.

A secondary strategy would be to prepare to acquire all or part of Northwestern's distribution system in the event that an opportunity would arise because of the company's bankruptcy or because of other developments.

Mr. Lawton stated that the first steps that would need to be taken would be for Staff to prepare an ordinance to establish an Electric City Power (EPC) utility, apply to the Public Service Commission for a license, work with suppliers to determine potential for energy supply, determine the EPC organizational structure, and learn the aggregate needs of governmental and other large users.

It was the unanimous recommendation of the City Commission that the City Manager proceed.
 

PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURNMENT