PUBLIC HEARINGS

As required by OCCGF 3.04, the City advertised the sale of the park property. The minimum acceptable bid was $56,000 ($55,000 appraisal price, plus $1,000 administration and closing costs).

The City received two bids on this park land. The highest bid of $60,252 was received from Plains Grains Limited Partnership, Robert Lassila, President.

The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan, approved in 1995, identified Block 1 and 2, Park Place Addition as surplus park property and recommended these properties be sold. The plan further recommended that if there was interest by neighboring residents in developing the park, the City should not sell the property for a period of one (1) year to allow the residents the opportunity to develop plans for the improvements. No such interest from the neighbors of the subject property has been expressed.

On May 6, 2003, the City Commission authorized staff to initiate the sale process on this property. The Park and Recreation Board at its April 8, 2003, meeting approved the sale and recommended the City Commission authorize the sale.

All money received from the sale of surplus park property is placed in the Park Trust to be used for future developments of existing parks.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to the sale of this park land. Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that City Commission approve the sale of surplus park land - Block 1 and 2, Park Place Addition for $60,252 to Plains Grains Limited Partnership.

Commissioner Hinz asked staff if they knew what the land was going to be used for and what the zoning was. Acting Park and Recreation Director Gumenberg replied she did not know the answer to either question. However, she reminded the Commission that the proceeds from the sale would go into the Park Trust Fund to be used for park development.

Motion carried 4-1 (Hinz dissenting).
 

The Great Falls Police Department applied for a grant that required an Advisory Board to be appointed to review the application for funding. The Ad Hoc Committee met on September 11, 2003. Discussion involved the proposed use of block grant funding for the purposes of offsetting costs associated with the purchase of equipment for the 911 Computer Aided Dispatch transition with an emphasis on Mobile Data Terminals. The Ad Hoc committee proposed that the funds be used to make technological improvements to the existing system and to expand the systems capabilities. These may include but will not be limited to: state interface, improved county interface, repeater enhancements, software purchases, mobile terminal purchases and/or radio updates. Once the system is fully operational it will improve crime analysis and response capabilities.

Congress allocated funds to be dispersed under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, established within the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).

The allocations were based on a formula which considered population and reported Part I violent crimes (Uniform Crime Report data). The Great Falls Police Department was awarded $51,212. The Department's matching share must be at least a ten percent ($5,690) hard cash match. The final federal award will be $56,902.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to the Law Enforcement Ad Hoc committee's recommendations. Mayor Gray closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission accept the recommendation of the L.E. Ad Hoc Committee for the use of BJA grant funds.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

NEW BUSINESS

ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

Staff anticipates proceeding with the issuance of storm drainage system debt, not to exceed $5,000,000. Proceeds of the debt are intended to finance construction of the City's storm drain improvements along 14th/15th street, which are being done in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Montana Department of Transportation dated June of 2001. All issuance fees and costs will also be paid out of this financing. Staff will be reviewing the programs available through the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and also in the open market to determine the most cost effective financing. A cash flow analysis of the storm drain utility indicates sufficient cash was available in the fund pending completion of the financing package. The debt financing was necessary to supplement the yearly capital improvement funds. Adoption of this Resolution served as official recognition of the intent to reimburse related expenses for construction costs from debt financed proceeds.

The City's Storm Drain Master Plan, completed in 1989, included recommended improvements to the 15th Street storm drain and its main connecting storm drains. This project will construct a new large storm drain from near River Drive along 14th Street to Central Avenue and then from 14th Street along Central Avenue to 15th Street. The continuation, scheduled for 2005, will extend a large storm drain from 15th Street along Central Avenue to 18th Street and along 1st Avenue North from 18th Street to 19th Street.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9345.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

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.

This proposal would position the City 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 presented 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's electricity costs at its water treatment plant increased by twenty one percent, because City facilities reverted to the default rate. The annual cost increase will be approximately $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.

Mr. Lawton stated that was obvious that electrical energy price and supply vulnerability would affect all of us as consumers. What may not be quite so obvious was that it would also affect the City's ability to develop its economy. An unstable supply of electricity at high prices could choke off possibilities of economic growth.

Mr. Lawton concluded stating that this proposal did not provide an immediate solution, 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 was time for municipalities to work with our successful and viable co-operatives to fill Montana's vacuum in energy policy.

Following the meeting held September 2, 2003 the ordinance was amended to include a finding of electricity service in the best interests of the City and a more detailed description of bond financing.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2861 as amended on final reading.

Mayor Gray stated that while this ordinance was not slated for a public hearing, he would entertain comments from the public. Those speaking in support of Ordinance were as follows: Tim Gregori, 1026 Durango Drive, Great Falls, Montana, stated that it was time to put Electric City back in Electric City. He added this was a monumental step forward in the formation of a municipal utility. Public power had a long standing record across United States for fighting costs, effective rates to the members that they serve. He said that it was a good move to partner with the co-ops.

Art Dolman, 3016 Central Avenue, Great Falls, Montana, stated he strongly supported this ordinance. He added that we live in a world of change as de-regulation has pointed so effectively to us all. He encouraged the City as a home owner and a citizen, to continue on this path because, he thought it very beneficial for our community.

Those speaking against were Dennis Lopach, Helena, Montana, Vice President of NorthWestern Energy, stated NorthWestern Energy was trying to focus on where it was going to get power in the future and what the price was going to be. He asked how much does low cost count verses stability. What were the alternatives? He thought that it was unfortunate that NorthWestern and the Cities had come to this parting of the ways and he regretted the circumstances with the terminated contract. He assured the Commission that if it hadn't been for the potential bankruptcy, the company would have taken a different course. He explained that this ordinance was not about becoming a supplier. It's about becoming a utility, and that he thought this poetically set his company and the City at odds if the City were to exercise its full scope of authority under the ordinance. He stated that NorthWestern Energy was not for sale. They were in Chapter 11 which was re-organization rather than liquidation and they planned to be around for quite some time. They didn't plan to sell parts of the business; they hoped the City didn't choose the course of attempting to condemn their facilities because they thought that would be a very negative, very expensive process.

Mr. Lopoch asked how the Public Service Commission powers and the City's powers would work together? Lopoch added NorthWestern Energy would be interested in how the cooperative was going to approach this issue, and that they certainly were opened to any ideas that would be in everyone's mutual interest.

There being no one further to address the Commission, Mayor Gray asked for Commission discussion.

Commissioner Bill Beecher asked if this option allowed the City to move in a lot of different directions.

City Manager replied it was designed to give the City the maximum number of available options and to keep them open.

Commissioner Bill Beecher asked that if there was a proposal that appeared to make sense would it have to come before this body for approval?

John Lawton replied he was correct. He added any major commitment would have to come back before the Commission for approval in a public meeting. Staff could not take this in a direction the Commission didn't know about.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz stated she was concern about PSC situation.

Mr. Lawton replied that this issue was one of the City's early steps; to seek a license as an energy provider/electricity provider from the PSC. After that however, it was an open question as to whether the City was are regulated by the PSC.

Commissioner Hinz asked if the co-ops were regulated by the PSC?

Tim Gregori replied stating that Electric Co-ops were locally regulated.

Commissioner Hinz asked what the difference was between a municipal utility and a co-op?

John Lawton replied stating co-ops were owned by their customers. Municipal governments were owned by the tax payer.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated he thought we would see some new things happening and some new opportunities.

Mayor Gray responded that it came down to what's the role of government? He found by his definition the role of government was to provide essential services. The City provides sewer and water in this town. The City provides these essential services that allow the residents to live together as a community and he put electricity in the same category, it's an essential service. The Commission was merely positioning the City to be able to take advantage of the circumstances and to be flexible. He thought this was the core business of government and he supported it.

There being no further discussion, Mayor Gray called for the vote.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The members of the Advisory Commission on International Relationships (ACIR) requested the City Commission expand the size of the ACIR from five to seven members to nine to eleven members. They requested this change for the following reasons:

1. The workload associated with hosting foreign delegations to the City coupled with the personal commitments that each member already, requires that the work be spread thinner than is now possible with its current seven members. The ACIR has to keep in consideration that the work starts when the hosting is announced and continues past the hosting with the submission of reports.
2. The ACIR's level of activity requires the establishment of an administrative infrastructure that would assume some of the functions now being handled by City Staff.
3. An expanded administrative infrastructure would require an increase in their officers from two (Chairman and Vice Chairman) to four to include a Secretary and Treasurer. The requested member increase would assist in filling these positions.

If this request was approved, it was anticipated that the ACIR would be in a better position to plan projects, organize itself to address projects in an effective posture, and have people available to accomplish the tasks associated with projects.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2863 on first reading and set the second and final reading for October 21, 2003.

Bob Harris, 1500 9th St NW, Great Falls, Montana 59404, stated he supported the Ordinance.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

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

Motion carried 5-0.
 

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

NHS, owner of the property located at 524 5th Avenue South, requested a variance to Section V. B. 1. a. 6 of the Great Falls Central Place Revitalization Plan. The variance reduces the required front yard setback from 30' to 13.5'. The applicant wanted to move the house on the adjacent lot onto Lot 7 and maintain the previous nonconforming front setback.

Section V. B. 1. a. 6 of the Great Falls Central Place Revitalization Plan states that the single-family R-2 District requires a 30' front setback. A site visit by staff found that several nearby residences along 5th Avenue South are setback well under the required 30' from the front lot lines (property files do not show approved variances for the reduced setbacks).

The Board heard the variance on Thursday, September 25, 2003. The Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance allowing the 13.5' front setback.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum that, the City Commission approve the variance as recommended by the Board.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

William Traynham, owner of the property located at 1742 Park Garden Rd, requested a variance to OCCGF 17.45.020. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 10'. The applicant wanted to build a 24' x 24' attached garage with living space above and maintain a 10' rear setback instead of the required 15' rear setback.

OCCGF 17.45.020 states that within an "A" Area district a lot that is less than deep must maintain a 15'rear setback. Mr. Traynham wanted to build an attached garage (with living space above) and maintain a 10' rear setback. The garage driveway prohibited expansion toward the west lot line. A map study and site visit by staff found that the triangular shaped lot, and the original positioning of the house, did not leave many remodeling options available. A review of the historical variance file found several group variances allowing 20' front setbacks for garages (including this lot), but no rear setback variances.

The Board heard the variance on Wednesday, October 1, 2003. After discussing the site plan, the depicted lot configuration, and the area available to build on, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the variance as recommended by the Board.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

William Wadman, owner of the property located at 2117 Greenbriar Drive, OCCGF 17.57.010. The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20' to 16'. The applicant wants to build an attached garage (24' x 24') to the front of the house.

OCCGF 17.57.010 states that for any property located within an "A" Area district a 30' front setback is required. However, this lot is one of several that have a 20' front setback for garages. Mr. Wadman wanted to build an attached garage (24' x 24') onto the front of the house and maintain a 16' front setback. A site visit by staff found that the topography of the lot prohibited the use of the side yard and rear yard for the garage site (the absence of alley access further limits the use of the rear yard). A review of the historical variance file found several group variances allowing numerous lots a 20' front setback for garages.

The Board then voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance allowing a 16' front setback for a new attached garage.

The Board heard the variance on Wednesday, October 1, 2003. The Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance allowing the 16' front setback for a new attached garage.

Commissioner Beecher, moved seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approved the variance as recommended by the Board.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The City Commission pulled this item from the agenda and asked staff to resubmit it on the October 21, 2003 agenda.
 

The terms of Wade B. Bitz and Jeff Witte expired on September 30, 2003. Mr. Bitz and Mr. Witte were eligible for and interested in reappointment. The term of Darcy Crum also expired on September 30, 2003. Ms. Crum served two three-year terms and, therefore, was not eligible for reappointment. It was necessary to appoint one new member to fill her position.

Commissioner Hinz asked staff to resubmit the appointment for Darcy Crum's position on the October 21, 2003 agenda.

Commissioner Hinz, moved seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission reappoint both Wade B. Bitz and Jeff Witte to a three-year term expiring September 30, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

ADJOURNMENT