Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini reported that Resolution 9343 would authorize submitting to the electors of the City of Great Falls a ballot question on November 4, 2003, in conjunction with the general election. The election would determine whether or not to issue $2.5 million of General Obligation Bond financing over a term of twenty years for a $3.4 million Soccer Park project.

The estimated tax increase for residential property with assessed value of $75,000 would be $5.60 per year. The estimated tax increase for residential property with an assessed value of $100,000 would be $7.51 per year. The estimated tax increase for residential property with an assessed value of $150,000 would be $11.20 per year.

Members of the community representing the Great Falls Soccer Foundation have been working diligently over the last two years to develop a plan to construct and operate a Soccer Park that would be owned by the City of Great Falls. The “project” would involve acquiring 35+ acres of land on the east end of the city across the street from Loy School on 57th Street. And, constructing and equipping the following improvements to be known as The Electric City Soccer Park: Playing fields, pavilion with picnic and concession facilities; restrooms; and parking. The facilities would be owned by the City but operated and maintained through a lease by the Great Falls Soccer Foundation. Funding the operations and maintenance of the project would not be an ongoing responsibility of the City but would be paid from an endowment fund and/or revenues collected from use of the facilities.

The “project” was estimated to cost $3.4 million. General Obligation Bond financing in the amount of $2.5 million for a twenty-year term would be put to voter approval, in conjunction with the general election on November 4, 2003. The remaining $900,000 was proposed to be generated through donations. Bonds would not be sold until all other necessary funding had been raised.

Section 7-16-4104, M.C.A. authorizes cities or towns to incur indebtedness upon the credit of the city for procuring various cultural, social or recreational improvements provided the indebtedness does not exceed limits established by law. The City of Great Falls currently has no general obligation indebtedness. This project would not cause the City to exceed its general statutory indebtedness limitation which is currently calculated at more than $28.9 million or its debt limitation for recreational facilities which is currently at more than $17.2 million.

The City Commission directed staff to review the proposal from the Youth Sports Park Committee. The staff response to the Commission's questions follow:

1. The Great Falls Soccer Foundation Steering Committee reviewed and refined construction expenses with the assistance of local engineering consultants, construction firms and landscape and irrigation specialists. Annual operating costs were generously estimated at $85,000/year. Industry standards indicate between $5,000 and $8,500/year/filed.

2. Information on the Electric City Soccer Park project was formally presented at the City Commission work session on August 19, 2003. Great Falls Soccer Foundation representatives will be making presentations to civic groups, interested neighborhood councils and others between now and the election. The Tribune had a follow-up news story on the project including a favorable editorial in the Great Falls Tribune.

Mayor Gray asked for public comment on the Soccer Park Project. He asked for comments from those wishing to speak in favor of the project. Those speaking in support were as follows: Kreg Jones; 1120 23rd Avenue S.W. Mr. Jones is the President of the Great Falls Soccer Foundation. He had five key points to make as follows:

• 1,000 kids play soccer in Great Falls
• 11,000 play in Montana
• This would provide and opportunity to host State and Regional Tournaments for long weekends
• The City of Great Falls presently cannot hold a tournament
• Great Falls is a central and logical city to host play yet we are the only city without a facility

He further stated that this project was about enhancing the quality of life in Great Falls with a significant economic impact.

The following soccer players spoke in support with comments such as the parks were not safe to play in; the players were tired of traveling; the sport was getting bigger every year; and safety issues: Kala Martin; no address available; Jordon Brown; 620 Coyote Lane; Cindy Volk; 3409 3rd Avenue South; Christa; 207 30th Avenue N.E.; Cara Addison; CMR High School - 705 Forest Avenue; Daniel Lamey; 31 Lane 12 NE - Fort Shaw; Josh Horton; CMR High School; Aaron Cagen; 902 Anita; Cody Valor; 812 29th Avenue N.E.; Amy Peterson; 300 Skyline Dr. N.E.; Taylor; 1120 Valleyview Drive; Kevin McCafferty; Bison Soccer Coach, explained he has been coaching for 11 years, and had attended 70 tournaments out of town consisting of two to three nights. He felt that families were attracted to towns by what was offered for their children. This could help attract more families to our city. He also mentioned it was great conditioning for kids with relatively few injuries; Sharen Rothler; 3210 14th Avenue South - Sharen stated she was on the soccer board in the 80's and they tried to get a complex then. This was way past due; Jordon Rothler; 1721 Montana Avenue - Black Eagle; Shelby Selstad; 40 Pheasant Drive; Dugan Coburn; 4621 Huckleberry Drive - He felt the sport provided discipline and taught sportsmanship; Stephanie Martin; 3005 Vacation Way; Janelle Jackson; 3204 9th Avenue South; Lisa Volk; 3409 3rd Avenue South; Ms. Volk wanted to stress the importance that the public know that the city does not currently have soccer fields, they are using the City parks. Wendy Jackson; 3204 9th Avenue South; Brian Enslave; 2721 Clover Drive; expressed concern over the parking issues and the safety of the children; Susan Ritter; 1101 Valleyview Drive; Mackenzie; Gretchen Swift; Ms. Swift is the Registered Commissioner of AYSO Soccer - she wanted to stress that this sport was not divided between North, South, East and West but that the entire city plays together. It was a great way for kids to meet other kids. Lisa Brown; President of Electric City Soccer Club and Treasurer of the Montana Youth Soccer Association for the State of Montana. She would like to see that she made a difference in the life of a child. Her life would be fulfilled.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz spoke that she wholeheartedly supported the endeavor. She also had concerns on the issues of safety and the condition of the parks. She encouraged everyone to vote and to get the word out to vote. Commissioner Hinz echoed Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz's comments. Commissioner Rosenbaum felt that it was time to do something for the youth in our city. Mayor Gray felt in witnessing the moratorium of the community that this venue is long overdue.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9343.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

CDBG Administrator Kim Johnson reported on the Citizen Participation Plan, which was required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and dictates that the City hold a public hearing to receive citizen input regarding the City's planned use of potential future CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantee and BEDI grant funding. HUD also requires the City to amend the 5-year Consolidated Plan to accommodate the planned use of these federal funds.

The City of Great Falls applied to HUD for $1.8 million in BEDI grant funding and $5.5 million in Section 108 loan guarantee funds to be used for the redevelopment of the 3rd Street Northwest riverfront corridor. The project area was 45 acres of blighted, undeveloped and contaminated commercial and industrial land located on the east side of 3rd Street Northwest to, and including the riverfront (West Bank Park), and from Central Avenue to the NW Bypass. The core property area was comprised of 14 separately owned tracts of land with ownership divided among public (Cascade County and the City of Great Falls), private, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.

With the assistance of a federal EDA grant, a master development plan for the project area has been written. This redevelopment plan was intended to be incorporated into, and was consistent with the Consolidated Plan, the Missouri River Corridor Master Development Plan, and the City's goal of providing better paying jobs for residents in Great Falls.

Redevelopment on this project would occur in phases, with the area south of 4th Street to Central Avenue being the first to be redeveloped, followed by the contiguous area to the North, which encompasses property owned by Cascade County and private owners, and last, the lands along the railroad property right-of-way. This phasing of development was needed because of known contamination on County and private property that would take time to resolve. It was anticipated that redevelopment of the full 45 acres would take at least five years, but timing would be dependent on market demand for this type of mixed use development.

The City of Great Falls applied for a BEDI grant in the amount of $1.8 million dollars from HUD which, if funded for this project, may be used for but not limited to the following activities to assist in the redevelopment of the project site: land acquisition, debt service reserve to the Section 108 loan, economic development activities, payment of interest on obligations on Section 108 loans, land write-downs, site remediation costs, project reserves, and provision of financing to for-profit businesses at below market interest rates. BEDI funds must be used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantee funds, and must be used for CDBG eligible projects that benefit low and moderate income residents of Great Falls.

In addition to, and in conjunction with the BEDI grant application, the City of Great Falls submitted an application for a $5.5 million Section 108 loan guarantee from HUD. Section 108 was the loan guarantee provision of the CDBG program and provides communities with a source of financing for large-scale physical development projects. The Section 108 loan process required the City to pledge five years of CDBG funds (current and future funds) as collateral, in case of default. Annual payments are made on the loan, and the interest rate was priced at the 3-month London Interbank offered rate plus 20 basis points. There was no pledge of the full faith and credit of the City required by HUD, and general tax revenues cannot be used to pay back the Section 108 loan. If a Section 108 loan payment to HUD would be missed, then the CDBG credit line would be tapped for that specific payment amount.

In the Section 108 loan application, the City proposed repayment of the $5.5 million loan over a 20-year term with annual level principal payments in the amount of $275,000 plus interest. The primary source of repayment of the Section 108 loan would be the payments received from approved and funded business loans.

The Section 108 loan guarantee funding would be used for funding the Business Loan Program, which would provide loans to for-profit business, and/or for the City for the following purposes: acquisition of real property, site clearance/demolition and relocation payments, interest payments, and site and infrastructure preparations. The Business Loan Program would be used in conjunction with private developer investments to make it economically feasible to redevelop the project area along the Missouri River. Under the terms of the Business Loan Program, borrowers would be required to create new employment opportunities primarily for low to moderate income people. The City of Great Falls projected that the use of the $5.5 million Section 108 funds would result in the creation of at least 157 new employment opportunities, with a majority of these opportunities offered to lower income people.

The proposed amendment to the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan was available for review and comment for a 30-day comment period August 1 - 30, 2003. No comments were received. A request for the change in use of funds, along with City Commission approval and any comments received are sent to HUD for their approval.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one spoke in support or opposition. There being no one to address the Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission close the public hearing and approve the amendment to the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan that includes the planned use of the CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantee and BEDI Grant.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Resolution 9342 annexed West Ridge Addition, Phase 1, consisting of 34 single family residential lots along the westerly extensions of 32nd and 33rd Avenues Northeast from 2nd Street Northeast.

Ordinance 2858 assigned a zoning classification of “A” Residence Use, “B” Area District, to West Ridge Addition, Phase 1, upon annexation of same to the City.

Acting Planning Director, Ben Rangel reported that in November 2002, the City and County Commissions conditionally approved the preliminary plat of West Ridge Addition, a 113 lot single family residential subdivision located on the west and north sides of Skyline Education Center.

G & M Properties desired to final plat and complete the annexation process for Phase 1, consisting of 34 lots along the westerly extensions of 32nd and 33rd Avenues Northeast from 2nd Street North.

The property was zoned in the County as “R-2” Low Density Residential District and the applicant requested the property be zoned “A” Residence Use District, upon annexation to the City.

Paving, curb and gutter would be installed in the segments of 1st Street Northeast and 32nd and 33rd Avenues Northeast within Phase 1 and within the abutting portion of 2nd Street Northeast.

City water and sanitary sewer mains would be installed in all roadways in Phase 1. All lots in the subdivision (except Lot 1, Block 2, Phase 1) would drain into a proposed lift station in the northerly portion of 2nd Street Northeast which would pump effluent into an existing City main in 2nd Street Northeast near the southeast corner of Phase 1.

Storm drainage from the subdivision would eventually be piped to the City's Northeast Regional Storm Water Retention Facility.

The Planning Board, during a meeting held June 10, 2003, recommended approval of the Addition, subject to the following conditions: The applicant execute an Annexation Agreement acceptable to the City of Great Falls and submit the appropriate supporting documents referenced in the Agreement. All applicable fees and charges due as a consequence of either plat or annexation approval be paid by the applicant. Any errors or omissions on the final plat noted by staff be corrected. And, final engineering documents for required public improvements to serve the subdivision would be subject to approval by the Public Works Department. Certain conditions have been fulfilled.

Annexation of subject property would enhance health, safety and welfare through application of City Codes and provision of municipal services.

It was anticipated the planned single family use of the property would be compatible with neighboring uses. Therefore, staff concluded the above-cited criteria are substantially met, provided the conditions in the recommendation for the subdivision are fulfilled.

To offer more variety and flexibility in structure placement on lots and create a more visually appealing streetscape, it was recommended the entire subdivision be zoned “B” Area District. Therefore, the minimum setbacks for structures in the subdivision would be:

The Planning Board, at the conclusion of a public hearing held October 22, 2002, recommended the City Commission assign a zoning classification of “A” Residence Use, “B” Area District, to West Ridge Addition, Phase 1, upon annexation to the City.

Mayor Gray declared the joint public hearing open. Speaking in support of Resolution 9342 and Ordinance 2858 was: Gary Knudson; 220 30th Avenue N.E. Mr. Knudson was the owner and developer of the addition. He noted that this was a natural and important addition to the City of Great Falls.

No one spoke in opposition of Resolution 9342 or Ordinance 2858. There being no one further to address the City Commission, Mayor Gray closed the joint public hearing.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Annexation Resolution 9342, Final Plat and Annexation Agreement all related to West Ridge Addition, Phase 1.

Motion carried 5-0

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2858.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini reported that on August 5, 2003, the City Commission set a September 2, 2003 public hearing date to hear anyone wishing to speak for or against Special Maintenance Lighting Districts Assessments.

The Fiscal Services Department finalized the SLD maintenance cost estimate, which was reflected in Resolution 9327. These costs included a projected 16 percent increase in budgeted utility expenses due to the recent development pertaining to the City's contract on energy costs. Maintenance and an administrative fee equal to 10 percent of estimated costs for the districts as presented in the annual budget would remain the same. The $1,183,037 assessment for fiscal year 03/04 projected charges based 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 required 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 opposition of Resolution 9327. There being no one to address the City Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9327.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini reported that on August 5, 2003, the City Commission set a September 2, 2003 public hearing date to hear anyone wishing to speak for or against Special Maintenance Lighting District - Residential Lighting “SLD-R” No. 1296 Assessment.

The Fiscal Services Department finalized the SLD-R maintenance cost estimate which was reflected in Resolution 9329. These costs included a projected 16 percent increase in budgeted utility expenses due to the recent development pertaining to the City's contract on energy costs. Maintenance and an administrative fee equal to 10 percent of estimated costs for this district as presented in the annual budget would remain the same. The $914,843 assessment for fiscal year 03/04 projects charges based 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 districts to the owners of the property embraced within the boundaries of such districts.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one spoke in support of or in opposition of Resolution 9329. There being no one to address the City Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9329.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini reported that on August 5, 2003, the City Commission set a September 2, 2003 public hearing date to hear anyone wishing to speak for or against Special Maintenance Lighting District - Commercial Lighting “SLD-C” 1295 Assessments.

The Fiscal Services Department finalized the SLD-C maintenance cost estimate which was reflected in Resolution 9330. These costs included a projected 16 percent increase in budgeted utility expenses due to the recent development pertaining to the City's contract on energy costs. Maintenance and an administrative fee equal to 10 percent of estimated costs for this district as presented in the annual budget would remain the same. The $55,495 assessment for fiscal year 03/04 projects charges based 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 districts to the owners of the property embraced within the boundaries of such districts.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one spoke in support of or in opposition of Resolution 9330. There being no one to address the City Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9330.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini reported that on August 19, 2003 the City Commission set a September 2, 2003 public hearing date to hear anyone wishing to speak for or against the proposed rates for sanitation service.

OCCGF 8.32.350 requires the Commission to adopt a resolution establishing rates to defray the costs of sanitation services for the fiscal year. Staff proposed adjusting the existing residential rates and continuing the commercial rates to adequately provide sanitation service. The proposed increase equates to $.25 per month of service for regular service and $.18 for Senior Citizens. The residential rates have not increased since July 1, 1998. The last sanitation rate increase was in Fiscal Year 02/03 for 3 percent, for commercial rates only. These rates were included in the FY 03/04 budget.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one spoke in support or in opposition of Resolution 9341. There being no one to address the City Commission, Mayor Gray closed the public Hearing.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9341.

Motion carried 5-0.

Because there were people in the audience wishing to address Item 24, Mayor Gray brought Item 24 to the floor.
 

John Rummel, owner of the property located at 2015 3rd Avenue SW, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 4, Community Hall Addition, requested a variance to reduce the required 6' side setback to 3' and the required 30' front setback to 7'. The applicant wanted to leave an existing structure (boxcar) setback 7' from the front lot line and position it so that there was a 3' side setback.

OCCGF 17.45.030 requires two 6' side yards in “A” Area districts. OCCGF 17.57.010 requires a 30' front setback for any property located within an "A" Area district. Mr. Rummel wanted to leave the boxcar at the existing 7' front setback and reposition it so that there was a 3' side setback. A review of the historical variance file found several side yard setback variances in the immediate area. Additionally, there was one similar variance allowing a detached garage to within 15' of a front lot line and within 3' of a side lot line (2020 3rd Ave SW).

10/69 - Variance at 2016 2nd Avenue SW - boat storage building to w/in 0' of a side lot line

8/72 - Variance at 14 20th Street SW - carport to w/in 3' of a side lot line

4/85 - Variance at 2020 3rd Avenue SW - garage w/in 15' of the front lot line & 3' side setback

6/90 - Variance at 201 20th Street SW - garage to w/in 0' of a side lot line

The Board of Adjustment reviewed the variance application on Thursday, July 31, 2003. Staff reviewed the application and reported that two neighbors (Jeff Browden of 2021 4th Ave SW and Roland Martin of 2035 4th Ave SW) called to register their support of the variance.

Mayor Gray asked the Commission if they had any ideas on how to resolve this problem. Commissioner Hinz wondered if the neighbor to the east of Mr. Rummel would be satisfied with a 15' front setback and a 3' side setback.

Ms. Renee Mason addressed the City Commission. She reminded the Commission that her son spoke with them two weeks ago and originally requested a 30' front setback (at least 15') with a 6' side setback. They would like this information before any more money was invested in the property.

Commissioner Rosenbaum addressed the issue saying his thoughts based on the 3' sideline was a safety issue only in the aspect that both properties were on the property line or closer. The 3' side setback was a standard used throughout the city. He felt it would be alright with the 3' side setback and the 15' front setback would be adequate to provide any frontal view or light passing through the trees. He recommended the Commission approve the variance as recommended by the Board with the stipulation that it wouldn't have to be moved until the construction next door/the foundation was poured or the placement of the modular, if that was the case, was substantially complete.

Mr. John McCarty, attorney representing John Rummel, indicated that they were fine with the 15' front setback and the 3' side setback. He also felt that this fell in line with historical variances in the neighborhood. He added that the recommendation that the boxcar be moved after the construction was a very good idea.

Renee Mason addressed the Commission again stating that her wishes were to have the boxcar moved immediately as she believed it was a burden to her mother. She felt it was illegally placed there in the first place.

Mrs. Hagen addressed the Commission stating that she just wished to come to a compromise with Mr. Rummel.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher to approve the variance with the following amendments: The variance will reduce the required 6' side setback to 3' and the required 30' front setback to 15'. The stipulation was added that the boxcar would not have to be moved until the construction next door was substantially complete.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Note: See item 8 at the beginning of the minutes.
 

NEW BUSINESS

City Manager John Lawton reported that this proposed ordinance would allow the City to establish an electric utility. The ordinance was general in nature, allowing the City to enter the business of providing electricity at varying levels. Presently, the City was only considering entering at the level of supplying electricity for City operations. If the City was successful in doing this, the City would also attempt to supply the needs of other governmental agencies. At this point the City was not considering entering the “poles and wires,” or retail distribution, end of the business.

This proposed ordinance authorizing the City's entry into the electric utility business would also allow eventual entry into all phases of supplying electricity locally. Mr. Lawton explained that the ordinance was to position the City to respond to several different scenarios should they materialize. Northwestern Energy, the City's current provider, was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and no one knew exactly how their attempts to solve their financial problems would play out. In the event it became necessary or advantageous for the City to enter the distribution side of the electric utility business to provide citizens with a stable, reliable and reasonably priced supply of electricity, a broad grant of authority would permit it to respond quickly. If it was neither necessary nor advantageous to Great Falls' residents for the City to be involved in energy distribution, then the City would not enter this side of the business.

The ordinance, along with an Attorney General's Opinion affirmed the City's authority to establish an electric utility.

This proposal would position the City of Great Falls to purchase electricity in wholesale markets and to distribute it in one or more of several ways. These ways of distributing power were as follows.

• Its own needs. The City uses about 16 megawatts of electricity annually. This is about 20 percent of the total community usage. Mr. Lawton suggested leveraging the City's own use to increase its purchasing power.
• Its own needs and the needs of other governmental users. When the electrical loads of the Airport, the School District, the County and other agencies were aggregated, the potential for leveraging purchasing power became even greater. Great Falls Public Schools were part of the contract to purchase electricity cancelled by Northwestern Energy.
• To other large users through Northwestern's distribution system.
• To the entire community if and when an opportunity presents itself to acquire all or part of the Northwestern electrical distribution system.

Mr. Lawton stated that the City's immediate strategy would be to assemble a portfolio of power contracts by working with governmental power marketers such as the Western Area Power Administration and with the City's neighboring rural electric co-operatives. Preliminary discussions have already been held with representatives of co-operatives. Several Montana cities and school districts contracted with Northwestern Energy to supply their needs for five years at a fixed price. Northwestern unilaterally abrogated the contract in late June of this year. Northwestern's lack of credit-worthiness affected their ability to commit to long-term contracts to supply electricity. After Northwestern repudiated the contract, the City of Great Falls' electricity costs at its water treatment plant increased by 21 percent, because City facilities reverted to the default rate. The annual cost increase will be in the neighborhood of $100,000. This was just for one City facility. The total additional cost to the City would be over $300,000 annually. These costs would be passed on to the ratepayers and taxpayers who are already suffering from increased electricity costs in their homes.

At present, Great Falls residents and businesses were at the mercy of the electrical energy marketplace. Northwestern Energy's ability to purchase power at advantageous prices was diminished by its financial situation. If there was another spike in prices for electricity, Great Falls energy costs would be affected immediately as increased costs were passed on to consumers. Montana is in a crisis of price and supply vulnerability.

It was obvious that electrical energy price and supply vulnerability will affect all of us as consumers. What may not be quite so obvious is that it will also affect our ability to develop our economy. An unstable supply of electricity at high prices could choke off any possibility of economic growth.

This proposal did not provide an immediate solution. But it provided a start. The City must begin to go its own way because statewide solutions had not been forthcoming. Local public power is well established throughout the nation and it may be time for it to come to Montana. Other avenues to a secure and stable energy future have failed in the parts of Montana served by the former Montana Power Company. It is time for municipalities to work with our successful and viable co-operatives to fill Montana's vacuum in energy policy.

Commissioner Beecher inquired if this was just opening the door to investigate possibilities. City Manager John Lawton responded yes, however, the City of Great Falls was currently investigating other possibilities. This Ordinance enabled the City to move quickly and take concrete steps when the opportunity arises. It established a framework for the City of Great Falls.

Mayor Gray felt this was an appropriate step for the City of Great Falls to take.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2861 on first reading and set final reading for October 7, 2003.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini reported that as required by State Statutes, the Great Falls Business Improvement District developed and presented a Work Plan and Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2003/2004. The City Commission conducted a public hearing and approved the Work Plan and Proposed Budget at the August 5, 2003 Commission Meeting.

As in prior years, the assessment requested for 2003/2004 was based on the assessment formula approved with the creation of the district, which would generate $158,496.92 in assessment revenue. The 2003/2004 assessment per lot was indicated on the assessment projection summary incorporated in Resolution 9328.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, to adopt Resolution 9328.

Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz recused herself)
 

CONSENT AGENDA

Larry Geske voiced his concern on Item # 16. On behalf of the Baseball Club, the Great Falls Baseball Foundation and the 100,000 ticket purchasers, he was concerned with long term parking. He felt the plan would reduce parking. With the increases in attendance at White Sox games he stated the parking would also increase. He asked the Commission to use a best efforts basis in developing the parking plan.

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

Motion carried 5-0.
 

BOARDS & COMMISSIONS

CITY MANAGER

Fire Chief Randy McCamley invited the public to attend a Commemoration Ceremony on September 11, 2003 at 7 p.m. at the Bill Williamson Hall in the C.M. Russell High School. The ceremony will begin at 7 p.m. with a theatrical performance from 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. The public can call the Chief at 727-8070 for additional information or Lee Phillips, C.M. Russell High School at 268-6170 for more information on the theatrical performance.
 

ADJOURNMENT