PUBLIC HEARINGS

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9402 annexes Berkner Heights Addition, Phase 10, consisting of 12 single-family residential lots along segments of 13th Avenue South and 41st Street South. The accompanying Agreement contains terms and conditions associated with subdivision and annexation.

In November 1996, the City and County Commissions conditionally approved, in accordance with a recommendation from the Planning Board, the preliminary plat of Prairie Ridge Addition. The proposed Prairie Ridge Addition consisted of 52 single-family residential lots located immediately east of Christianson Addition along 13th and 14th Avenues South. The City and County Commissioners extended the above mentioned preliminary plat approval to the year 2005.

The final plats of the first four phases of the subdivision, consisting of a total of 37 lots, have been approved. The proposed name Prairie Ridge Addition has been replaced with Berkner Heights Addition and said final plats were designated Phases 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Addition.

The developer of the subdivision, C & W Development, Inc., now desired to proceed with finalizing the platting and annexation of the final phase, which consists of 12 residential lots along segments of 13th Avenue South and 41st Street South.

Engineering documents relative to the final plat of Phase 10 had been prepared by the project engineer. Staff concluded that the basic conditions set forth in the conditional approval of the preliminary plat are being met by the developer in the overall process of final plat, final engineering and Annexation Agreement preparation.

The Planning Board, during a meeting held April 27, 2004, recommended the City Commission assign a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, and approval of the final plat to Berkner Heights Addition, Phase 10, upon its annexation to the City, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant execute an annexation agreement.
2. All applicable fees are paid.
3. Any errors or omissions on the final plat noted by staff be corrected.
4. Final engineering documents for required public improvements to serve the subdivision are subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

Conditions 1 and 2 have been fulfilled and conditions 3 and 4 will be fulfilled prior to filing of the final plat. Ordinance 2877 assigns the zoning classification.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9402 or Ordinance 2877. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9402 and approve the final plat and Annexation Agreement for Berkner Height Addition, Phase 10.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2877.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Community Development Director Mike Rattray reported that the owner of property at Lot 9, Block 84, GF Townsite was issued a "Notice of Hearing" before the City Commission to appear June 15, 2004. The hearing was to show cause why the owner of the property should not be liable for the costs incurred in razing the structure known as 1123 ½ 8 Avenue North.

The owner of the property was given sixty (60) calendar days from January 27, 2004, to obtain either a repair or razing permit. Neither a permit nor an appeal was filed for during the allotted time set by the 2003 International Building Code. Proposals for razing the structure were taken with the contract awarded to Phillips Construction Company. Razing was completed on May 13, 2004.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. There being no one to appear to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9395, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9395.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that if approved on final reading, Ordinance 2876 would rezone Lots 1-7, Block 582, 5th Addition to GF Townsite, from "C" Residence Use, "C" Area District, to 1st Industrial, "D" Area District. Subject property is located along the south side of 1st Avenue Southwest between 13th and 14th Streets Southwest. The accompanying agreement contained terms and conditions applicable to the rezoning.

Lee Janetski desired to construct buildings on the south side of 1st Avenue Southwest between 13th and 14th Streets to lease to small business operators or contractors. The property is presently zoned "C" Residence Use District, and does not permit this business use. The owner requested the property be rezoned to 1st Industrial District.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the rezoning on January 27, 2004, and passed a motion on a 6-3 vote, recommending the City Commission approve the rezoning of Lots 1-7, Block 582, 5th Addition, from "C" Residence Use, "C" Area District, to 1st Industrial, "D" Area District and stipulating that any business involving on-site alcohol consumption, gaming or gambling and any operation which creates objectionable noise, odor, smoke, fumes, vapor, dust or gas would be prohibited. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Sue Ann Strickland, 609 2nd Ave SW #4, Neighborhood Council # 2, spoke in support of the Ordinance 2876. She stated initially they were concerned with the rezoning and that she and Mr. Janetski have had several conversations addressing the issues specifically pertaining to hazardous materials. She provided a list of materials she'd like included in the agreement. Ms. Strickland stated that the residence above the rezoning area requested a non-glaring roof to be added to the conditions. She and Mr. Janetski agreed to the non-glare roof. It had not been added to the requirements but Mr. Janetski did agree to the roof condition recommendation.

Planning Director Ben Rangel stated that he was not sure of the procedure to add more conditions although it made reference to objectionable general types of noises, fume and so forth. In terms of adding specific types of hazardous materials, Mr. Rangel was again not sure of the procedure to be used to make these additions at this point and time. Mr. Rangel stated that regarding the non-glare issue, within the agenda report there was a specific item dealing with things noted with landscaping, siding, yard, fencing, and a roof with non-glaring materials could be added to that list. This item could be discussed at the Design Review Board.

Mayor Gray stated that this was something that the Commission should not be negotiating at this meeting and to send this back to staff for defining and making some changes.

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

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2876 and the accompanying agreement.

Sue Ann Strickland asked if the Commission approved the agreement without amending it to include the issues and agreements she brought forth, if Mr. Janetski could back out of the agreement.

Commissioner Hinz stated that if the agreement was in writing it would most likely be carried out. Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz stated that the agreement had to go before the Design Review Board and this could be discussed at that time.

Commissioner Hinz and Beecher concurred that the recommendations could be brought before the Design Review Board.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated if Sue Ann Strickland with the Neighborhood Council and Lee Janetski were in agreement that they could work directly together.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission amend the motion that the City Commission table Ordinance 2876.

Motion failed 2-3. (Mayor Gray and Commissioners Jovick-Kuntz and Rosenbaum dissenting).

Original Motion carried 4-1. (Commissioners Hinz dissenting).
 

Before Mayor Gray introduced this item, he provided some procedural rules to be followed during the public hearing.

1. Do not talk in the background when someone was talking at the podium.
2. Be civil.
3. Do not repeat.
4. Stay on the issue.
5. No time limit would be set unless needed.

Mayor Gray asked the audience for questions they wanted staff to address regarding the boulevard district proposals. This process was informal and lasted for approximately one hour. Following this discussion, Mayor Gray asked City staff to present this issue to the public.

City Forester Jon Thompson reported that staff, at the request of the City Commission, propose the creation of a City-wide Tree and Landscaping Program. The intent of the program was to plant, protect, preserve and maintain public trees on City-owned property and rights-of-way in order to enhance Great Falls' beauty and environment for the greater benefit of the community. The goal of the City-wide Tree and Landscaping Program would be to provide a comprehensive method for planning, managing and caring for trees and landscaping along public right-of-ways in a consistent and effective manner.

M.C.A. 7-12-4136 provided for the creation of a tree maintenance district; "where trees have been planted or grass plots constructed and grass sown thereon or any one or more of said improvements have been made in special improvement districts, it was hereby made the duty of the council of said city or town to cause said trees and grass to be watered, the grass cut, the trees trimmed and to otherwise maintain and preserve said improvements as the council shall deem suitable and proper."

M.C.A. 7-12-4162 provided for the assessment of costs, "the city council or commission shall assess the entire cost of an improvement against benefited property in the district, each lot or parcel of land assessed within such district to be assessed for that part of the whole cost which its assessable area bears to the assessable area of all benefited lots or parcels in the district.assessable area may be less than but may not exceed the actual area of the lot or parcel."

The City-wide Tree and Landscaping Program involved three distinct districts. An "Urban Boulevard District," and "Expanded District" and a "Phased-In District."

Within the Urban Boulevard District, the assessable area was proposed to be set with a square footage cap of 12,000 square feet for residential property and 1 million square feet cap for all other property. The estimated annual assessment in the "Urban Boulevard District" would be $12.27 for an average size lot of 7,500 square feet with a maximum assessment of $19.64 for a residential lot capped at 12,000 square feet.

The services for the "Expanded" District included tree pruning, tree and stump removal, tree planting, watering, fertilization, insect and disease control and planning and management of trees and landscaping along public right-of-way, public parks and open-space land within the City's incorporated boundaries.

The assessable area for this district was proposed with a square footage cap of 12,000 square feet for residential property, and a 1 million square feet cap for all other property. Square footage caps have proven to be the most equitable method of assessment. The estimated annual assessment for the expanded boulevard area would be $47.69 for an average lot size of 7,500 square feet.

Services provided would include tree pruning, tree and stump removal, tree planting, watering, fertilization, insect and disease control and management of trees and landscaping along public right-of-ways, public parks and open-space land.

The "Phased-In" District also was proposed with an assessable area set with a square footage cap of 12,000 square feet for residential property, and a 1 million square feet cap for all other property. Square footage caps have proven to be the most equitable method of assessment.

The First Year Phase-In would have an estimated annual assessment rate of $36.11 for an average lot size of 7,500 square feet. The second year Phase-In would consist of a modification of the boundaries of Special Improvement Maintenance District "Phase-In Boulevard" No. 1301 to include parcels from the General Boulevard Maintenance District. The City Commission would make this decision at a later date if modifications to the boundaries of the Special Improvement Maintenance District "Phase-In Boulevard" No. 1301 were desired.

Services provided would include tree pruning, tree and stump removal, tree planting, watering, fertilization, insect and disease control and management of trees and landscaping along public right-of-ways, public parks and open-space land.

Mayor Gray asked City Manager John Lawton to give a brief summary regarding the process used and the options before the Commission. Mr. Lawton complied explaining the State law pertaining to the creation and modification of maintenance districts. He clarified that because the City did not receive a fifty percent or more protest amount on any of the proposed boulevard districts, the Commission was now required to approve or deny their creation.

He also stated that there were legitimate complaints regarding the process used and that the City could do a better job at getting information to the public. He emphasized that the amount of the protest received did not come close to the fifty percent, even if the invalid protests were counted.

During the question gathering section of this meeting, one of the questions was why this issue was not put to the vote of the people. Mr. Lawton stated that the City was only allowed to put certain things on the ballot and unfortunately this was not one of those items. He added, however, that there were ways of finding out what people want. He gave presentations at Neighborhood Councils meetings and using the media to help increase public awareness as examples. Mr. Lawton explained that staff presented these proposals to all the Neighborhood Councils and worked with the media to have several stories published about it.

Another question asked was, "Why didn't the City go beyond the fifteen day limit?" Mr. Lawton stated that he did not know the answer to this question.

Mr. Lawton suggested that the Commission had three options:

1. The Commission could deny Resolution 9387, because staff discovered errors in the notification process, and then adopt Resolutions 9389 and 9404 which would create the phased-in and the urban boulevard districts. Or,
2. Leave original district intact. Or,
3. Reject all proposals and advise staff to look into this further and come back with another proposal.

Another citizen question was, why was there different resolution numbers used on this agenda compared to the resolution numbers that were on the post cards that were mailed out. City Forester Jon Thompson stated that the resolution numbers on the postcards were the intent to create resolutions and the current resolution numbers on the agenda were the creation numbers. The district numbers on both resolutions remained the same.

City Forester Jon Thompson provided a report regarding the proposal before the Commission and explained that staff mailed letters regarding the City's intention to create the different districts as well as postcards clarifying the protest procedures. Each property owner within the City received both pieces of correspondence. The database used to generate the letters was from Cascade County. He added that according to State law, written protests had to be submitted within 15 days after the date of the first publication of passage of the resolutions of intention.

Fiscal Services Operations Supervisor Martha Cappis then stated that the first publication of notice was printed May 24, 2004, which meant that the 15 day protest period ended June 8, 2004. She reported that the following protests were received:

Urban Boulevard District: The City received and verified 1,572 protests which represented a 12.37 percent protest based upon the assessable property value.

Phased In Boulevard District: The City received and verified 516 protests which represented a 14.35 percent protest based upon the assessable property value.

Expanded Boulevard District. The City received and verified 551 protests which represented a 8.35 percent protest based upon the assessable property value.

Ms. Cappis then explained the process staff used to validate the protests. A protest was invalid if it was not signed by all property owners, the property was not adequately identified, or if the wrong district was protested.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open to discuss Resolution 9389, Resolution 9387 and Resolution 9404.

Those speaking in favor of the Resolutions were:

Sue Ann Strickland, 609 2nd Avenue Southwest #4, stated that she was speaking for herself not for Neighborhood Council #2. Ms. Strickland stated that she loved trees and was glad that there was an attempt to beautify the City. She also stated that she did not have children in school and she pays taxes for that and the tree boulevard was no different.

Gary Trescott, 820 2nd Avenue Southwest, stated that he was in favor of the tree district boulevards and that the trees the City have needed attention. He also stated that he hoped the Commission considered passing the tree resolutions.

Wyman Taylor, 3027 8th Avenue South, stated that he was in the Phase-In Boulevard and was in favor of the resolution. He also stated that it was time to take better care of the trees the City already had.

Those speaking against the Resolutions were:

John Angry, (unknown if this is his real name), stated that he lived on a fixed income and that utilities have gone up and the tree boulevard would raise his property taxes even higher. He also stated that he had lost seven trees to Dutch Elm disease and not one had been replaced. He stated that the City does not take care of the trees they currently have.

John Zabawa, 3618 8th Avenue South, stated that he owns two properties that were in the boulevard district and that the public was mislead regarding the project. He asked why the City could not keep the trees that they already have and take care of them instead of adding more. Mr. Zabawa also stated that when the City had the wind storm a couple of years ago, he had called Park and Recreation regarding the damaged trees in his yard and nothing was done. He stated that the City needs to take responsibility for the trees the City already has.

Pat Dailey, 1815 7th Avenue South, stated that the elections had a levy that was voted down because people do not have the money for the taxes to keep going up. Mr. Dailey stated that the tree boulevard needed to be at the bottom of the list for priorities and that the City needed to get the industries to come into the City, not trees.

Art Vender, 1606 8th Avenue South and 514 2nd Avenue South, stated that on his property there was a five foot boulevard and there was no room to plant trees. He stated that people would not come to protest the $12 tax in the Urban District. He also concurred with the previous people that this proposal should be denied

Patrick Gordon, 2919 5th Street Northeast, stated that he went door- to-door to about one hundred residents. He stated that ninety-seven were against the tree boulevard and three were in favor. The comment from the majority of the people he spoke with was Tax it, and Spend it. He stated the idea of the tree district was poorly conceived. He was against the entire idea and would rather pay extra taxes for staffing the Police Department or Fire Department, not for trees.

Joyce Gustin, 3716 7th Avenue North, stated that she specifically looked for a house without trees. She does not like trees and does not want trees on her boulevard. She also stated that she was concerned how the City planned on watering all the trees. Mayor Gray stated that the City drives by and waters trees until the roots have sprouted out and can reach their own water supply. She asked who was responsible for the sidewalks when the tree roots destroy them.

Gene Ingold, 1537 Meadowlark Dr, gave each of the Commissioners a letter to halt the process of the tree district boulevard. He stated that there were laws for legal processes for special maintenance districts which require listing costs for maintenance. The notices that were sent did not contain this information.

Roxanne Christofferson, 1121 20th Avenue Southwest, currently has three properties outside of the tree boulevard district, and asked how much of the amount assessed would help pay for the trees. Ms. Christofferson also stated that there were various reasons why people were protesting the tree district boulevard. She stated that the City needed to look at other areas to provide funding for the tree district. City Manager John Lawton stated that the General Fund contribution to tree maintenance was about $181,000 per year.

Brian Pluker, 3426 3rd Avenue North, stated that the City services currently offered now were not being rendered. He stated that he called the City regarding a dead tree branch thirty feet up in the air and nothing happened. He spoke with Tom Sullivan at one point and later with Jon Thompson. He stated that he was put on a waiting list. Mr. Pluker said that the electric company had to come out to do some work and they noticed the tree branch and asked if Mr. Pluker would like them to cut it down. The electric company cut the branch down without charging for the service. He also asked who was going to pay for damages to sidewalks and roofs caused by these trees that were owned by the City. For instance, sidewalk repairs and damages to roofs? Mr. Pluker stated that he did not want the this service.

Ned Jennings, 1113 Adobe Drive, stated that he opposed resolutions 9388 and 9389. He stated that he was not asking to table this but to terminate the process and that this was not in the best interest of the public.

Audrey Finlayson, 3721 3rd Avenue South, Neighborhood Council #4, stated that she was not speaking for the Neighborhood Council. She walked from neighbor to neighbor to get responses to this proposal. She stated she went to about one hundred neighbors and everyone was against the tree district boulevard. She also stated the house she resides in has no trees and she does not want service for something she did not have. She encouraged the Commission to deny the resolutions and possibly look into other options to fund the tree maintenance.

Nick Morrison, 1816 6th Street Northwest, stated that he was against the resolution and that he understood the law, but could there be something done through the legislature to change the process. He stated that the process was not explained well. Mr. Morrison stated that he was not totally against this, but suggests staff go back to the drawing board and make some changes. The state at one point paid for some trees and the City maintains them. Mr. Morrison liked the City Manager's third choice to reject all three resolutions.

Pat Pierson, stated that he did not live in the City limits but owns property within the City and that the City needed to take the money from the trees and put it into the Police and Fire departments.

Linda Jennings, 1113 Adobe Drive, stated she was against the tree district boulevard. She stated she liked trees but, let the people who want trees pay for them. Also, if the City owned the right-of-way to the boulevards then the City needed to pay for the trees not the property owner. She stated that the City had no business taking over property owner's trees when they couldn't take care of their own trees.

Charles Hedrick, asked if the parks have anything to do with the tree districts, and that most taxes are used for paid services. Most of the City would not have any services with the boulevard districts. He stated that a flat fee would be a fair way to go for everyone.

Isabelle Caton, 2604 Central Avenue West, asked if the City could not take care of the trees they have now, why they would take on more.

Henry Schuman, 3426 8th Avenue North, stated that he has lived in his home for thirty-seven years and has had his trees trimmed twice in that time frame that cost him $500. If he has to pay $48 per year that was $1,600 in thirty-seven years. He asked what the City would do with these funds.

Marin Jakubowski, 3004 5th Avenue South, asked who decided what letters were invalid of valid. He also stated that if a person wanted a tree then they plant it, water it, and care for it.

Phyllis Hemstad, presented photocopies of letters to the editor sent to the Tribune regarding of the boulevard districts. She explained the basic premise of the letters was that property owners did not have sidewalks, lights or trees and would have to pay for services they did not receive. She asked the Commission to put the resolutions aside and let the people vote on this issue.

Robert Mehlhoff, 407 9th Street Northwest, stated that it was unfair for a person with $50,000 in property compared to $150,000 would pay the same amount. He stated that the City needed to look into grants to take care of this.

Barbara Nutter, 1418 6th Avenue Northwest, asked City Forester Jon Thompson if there would be any trees planted in her area. She suggested the City needed to keep the fee in the area where the trees were.

Ed Olson, 3448 14th Avenue South, stated that his comment applied to all three resolutions, most of the people who did not support the tree district boulevard showed up for the public hearing. The City should reverse the process and see how many would have showed up in favor of the resolutions. He suggested that people who want trees get SID's or pay for the trees themselves.

Emil Newman, 1309 Avenue B Northwest, stated that they planted their own trees and did not need any more trees on their property.

Juanita Levitt, 836 29th Avenue Northeast, stated that she planted her own trees and the type of tree they planted did not shed leaves. She also stated that the citizens were taxed to death and with the utility increases the tree district needed to be denied.

John Angry, (unknown if this is his real name), asked City Forester Jon Thompson if Dutch Elm Disease would kill the remaining Elm trees on his property. Mr. Thompson stated that the spread rate of the disease has gone down and that the City only lost a total of twenty-six trees last year.

John Sturgeon, 121 2nd Street Northwest, wanted to know who brought the tree district boulevard up. He stated that the City needed to go to find another source of money for this project. Mayor Gray stated that the Commission requested that staff work on the creation of the city-wide boulevard district because the Commission has heard from many citizens during the past few years regarding the tree boulevards and the replacement of trees that had the Elm disease.

There being no one further to speak against or for the resolutions, Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher suggested that the Commission vote on Agenda Six first.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission deny Resolution 9387.

Commissioner Hinz asked if the Commission denied this resolution would the original district stay in tact? City Manager John Lawton replied it would.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission deny Resolution 9389.

Commissioner Hinz stated that the boulevard district was too complex and the time was not right for a city-wide boulevard district. She also stated that she hoped the City revisited the tree boulevard district and simplify it more.

Commissioner Beecher stated that he supported Commissioner Hinz's motion based on the confusion and fairness of the City's proposal. He stated that this did need to come back with a different recommendation, for two reasons. 1) Everyone shares in the benefits of the trees and everyone should all pay, to some extent, for the up keep of the trees. 2) The City was not taking adequate care of the trees it currently has. Commissioner Beecher asked staff to go back to the board and consider a different approach.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz concurred with Commissioner Beecher and did not want to see this dropped and stated that she would like to see this brought back to the Commission in some sort of SIDs or grants. Also, she would like to see people that were not totally against this to get involved and help bring this back.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that there was a lack of communication and the boulevard district needed to be re-visited and that he supported this city motion. The boulevard district was a positive thing for this community.

Mayor Gray stated that he supported the denial of the resolutions and would like to see this issue come back through staff and to have the process start over. He stated that the process was flawed and staff could work on this. He stated that Montana was a property tax dependent system. For people on fixed incomes there may be some solutions that could qualify them for CDBG to pay for their tree taxes or some sort of funding. He also clarified that the Commission was the one to request these proposals from staff. Mayor Gray also recommended that the City explore the ideas they heard and take a look at different procedures.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission deny Resolution 9404.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

OLD BUSINESS

Community Director Mike Rattray reported that at the May 18, 2004, Work Session, the City Commission reviewed the Board of Adjustment's recommendation concerning the Flying J's sign variance application and opted to consider approving the variance. Approval was held in abeyance pending the development of a site-specific signage plan. Once completed, the plan was to be submitted to staff and presented at a subsequent City Commission meeting. The Flying J followed through and submitted a sign plan and a signage waiver document signed by Crystal Inn management and the Flying J management.

Flying J Travel Plaza originally sought a variance for a 70' high pole sign and a variance to allow the aggregate pole sign face to total 769.5 square feet. When reviewing the Board of Adjustment recommendation, the City Commission asked the Flying J Travel Plaza representative to prepare a comprehensive sign plan for the site and present it to the Commission. Following through on the Commission's request, a Travel Plaza representative submitted a plan that reflects the Company's willingness to reduce the amount of signage allowed on the expansive site. Furthermore, the Crystal Inn agreed, in writing, to waive its right to install pole signs on the Crystal Inn parcel. The modified Flying J variance would allow the aggregate pole sign face to total 693.5 square feet and allow one of the pole signs to stand 70 feet high.

The current sign ordinance limits the Flying J to three pole signs and an aggregate pole sign face of 500 square feet. In addition, pole signs are limited to a maximum height of 35 feet.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission approve the variance, the proposed signage plan, and the Sign Waiver Agreement.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

NEW BUSINESS

Fiscal Services Supervisor Martha Cappis reported that the passage of Resolution 9396 would authorize staff to complete the sale of $2,500,000 in General Obligation Bonds to provide funding for the Great Falls Youth Soccer Park and determining the form and details, authorizing the execution, and delivery and levying taxes for the payment thereof.

The City agreed to provide certificates to the purchasers complying with Section 148 of the Code and the Regulations, and to comply with all continuing disclosure requirements as stated in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This Resolution also states the City Commission would annually levy an ad valorem tax on all of the taxable property in the City to pay the interest and principle when it falls due.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9396.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9401 would initiate vacation of a triangular segment of right-of-way immediately west of the intersection of 2nd Street South and 7th Avenue South.

Mitchell and Mary Stelling and Sheffels Farms, Inc., submitted petitions to approve the Preliminary (Amended) Plat of Lot 2, Block 8, Broadwater Bay Business Park, and Lot 1, Block 478, GF Townsite, and vacate a 3,647 sq. ft. segment of street right-of-way along the west side of 2nd Street South.

The owners desired to subdivide the 2.7182 acres contained in the Preliminary (Amended) Plat into four lots. Stelling Engineers, Inc., occupies the building on the proposed Lot 2A. The remaining proposed three lots are presently vacant.

After reviewing the matter during a meeting held May 25, 2004, the City-County Planning Board passed a motion recommending the City Commission approve the vacation of the small segment of street right-of-way along the west side of 2nd Street South, the Preliminary (Amended) Plat of Lot 2, Block 8, Broadwater Bay Business Park, and Lot 1, Block 478, GF Townsite, and the accompanying Findings of Fact, subject to:

1. preparation of a certificate of title by a title company to be filed with the amended plat;
2. correction of any errors or omissions on the amended plat which may be noted by staff including provision of appropriate certificates for signature and an easement to include the fire hydrant in the southeast corner of proposed Lot 2A; and,
3. filing in the County Clerk and Recorder's Office, either prior to or simultaneously with the transfer deed for Lot 2C, documentation outlining responsibility for maintenance of the 25-foot roadway easement on Lots 2A and 2C.

It was anticipated the Preliminary (Amended) Plat and Findings of Fact would be submitted to the City Commission for simultaneous consideration on July 6, 2004, with the final resolution providing for vacation of the involved right-of-way.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9401.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9403 sets a public hearing for July 20, 2004, to consider the annexation of Meadowlark Addition 3, an 18 lot single-family residential subdivision located southwest of Grande Vista Park and immediately east of Flood Road. In April, the City and County Commissions conditionally approved the preliminary plat of Meadowlark Addition No. 3.

The Planning Board, during a meeting held June 8, 2004, recommended approval of the final plat of Meadowlark Addition 3. It was anticipated the conditions would be completed prior to the annexation hearing on July 20, 2004, wherein the Commission would be provided a copy of the final plat and Annexation Agreement.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9403 expressing intent to annex Meadowlark Addition No. 3 and setting a public hearing on the annexation for July 20, 2004.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Ordinance 2880 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, to Meadowlark Addition No. 3 upon annexation of same to the City.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Beecher, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2880 on first reading and set a hearing for July 20, 2004, to consider adoption of Ordinance 2880.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

City Manager John Lawton reported that adopting Ordinance 2878 would set forth the rules and regulations of the Riverside Railyard Skate Park.

The City opened the Riverside Railyard Skatepark March 12, 2004. Since this time concern has been expressed over the use of appropriate safety gear at the park as well as other rules and regulations. This Ordinance would provide rules and regulations for the park to include the mandatory use of appropriate safety gear.

Staff requested an opinion from the Montana Municipal Insurance Authority (MMIA) on the mandatory requirement of helmets at the skate park. They presented three possible options.

1. Making helmets mandatory and enforcing the rule consistently by staffing the park;
2. Making helmets mandatory but not enforcing the rule consistently;
3. Making a recommendation that helmets be worn, but not making it a mandatory rule.

The MMIA supported the first option. It served the interests of safety, and did not create substantial additional liability exposure for the City. On the other hand, if the City was not willing or able to staff the park and enforce a mandatory helmet rule consistently, then from a risk management standpoint, option number three was the best alternative.

Staff planned to use the newly installed cameras as well as routine police patrol to monitor the use of helmets at the skate park as well as other inappropriate activity. Park and Recreation staff would check the skate park as they make their rounds. The Police Department would schedule the day and night shifts for regular walk-throughs, and drives-bys as well as having the Shift Commander or the dispatchers monitor the web site.

The Park and Recreation Department researched the requirement of protective equipment, including helmets at skate parks. Their research included the National Consumer Product Safety Commission, several internet websites and several publicly owned skate parks. Their findings were as follows:

• Wearing of full protective gear - helmets, wrist guards, elbow and knee pads - was shown by research to provide substantial protection from fall related injuries. Thirty-three percent of injuries were to skaters that had been skating less than a week; 40 percent were to persons using a borrowed board; only 5 percent were treated with in-patient care; and 50 percent of the accidents occurred in unsafe areas where skaters struck an irregularity in the riding surface.
• Studies have shown that the wearing of protective gear is uniformly low among skateboarders. Safety signage has little or no effect on the wearing of safety gear.
• Most skate parks either recommend or make mandatory wearing protective gear including helmets. A majority (over 50 percent) recommend the use of helmets rather than making it mandatory.
• According to the National Consumer Product Safety Commission, skateboarders are less likely to require emergency medical care than participants in more traditional sports like baseball, basketball, football, soccer, etc.

The City of Kalispell has an ordinance making the use of protective gear mandatory. They do not man the park, they have their City police patrol the park on a regular basis. To date, there has been only a few tickets issued. The patrons seemed to catch on quickly that they would be ticketed if they did not wear the proper protective equipment.

Mayor Gray requested that the public hearing be set for them July 20, 2004, rather than July 6 as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2878 on first reading and set public hearing for 7p.m., July 20, 2004.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

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

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Dorothy "Dottie" Sullivan was appointed the Civic Center Advisory Board on January 4, 2000, and reappointed on December 3, 2002. Heather Porter was appointed to the Civic Center Advisory Board on August 5, 2003. Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Porter recently resigned their positions on the board; therefore, it was necessary to appoint two new members to fill their vacancies.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission appoint Mollie Anne Pugh and Rick Tryon to the Civic Center Advisory Board to fill the remainder of two three-year terms, ending December 31, 2005; and December 31, 2006, respectively.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The term of Luella Vogel expires June 30, 2004. Ms. Vogel was appointed to the Board in July of 1999 for a five-year term. She was not eligible for reappointment. The term of Rosetta McIalwain expired on May 31, 2004. Ms. McIalwain was appointed to the Board in September of 2000, and served two terms. Ms. McIalwain was interested in reappointment.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission appoint Kelly A. Martinez-Delano as a commissioner to serve a five-year term through June 30, 2009; and reappoint Rosetta Mclalwain as a tenant member to the Great Falls Housing Authority for a two-year term through May 31, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Penny Hughes-Briant's term expires on June 30, 2004. Ms. Hughes-Briant was appointed in 1999 to serve a five-year term. She was interested in and eligible for reappointment.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission reappoint Penny Hughes-Briant to the Library Board for another five-year term, expiring June 30, 2009.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz reminded the public about the "Taste of Great Falls" this Friday evening at the Civic Center.
 

ADJOURNMENT