PUBLIC HEARINGS

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9440 annexes the area within West Ridge Addition, Phase II, located immediately north of Skyline Education Center and consisting of 32 proposed condominium units and 6 conventional single-family lots. The accompanying Agreement contains terms and conditions associated with subdivision and annexation.

The Planning Board held a meeting on October 12, 2004, and recommended approval of the final plat of West Ridge Addition, Phase II, and annexation of the property contained therein subject to the following conditions; applicant execute an Annexation Agreement acceptable to the City of Great Falls and shall submit the appropriate supporting documents referenced in the Agreement; all applicable fees be paid; any errors or omissions shall be corrected.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Gary Kundson, owner and developer of West Ridge Addition, asked the Commission to support the annexation and zoning. No one appeared to speak in opposition to Resolution 9440 or, Ordinance 2889. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9440 and approve the final plat and annexation agreement all related to West Ridge Addition, Phase II.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Planning Director Ben Rangel stated that the City and the developer of West Ridge Addition (G & M Properties) desire to exchange properties north of Skyline Education Center to allow for a better alignment of avenues in the developing area.

In 1970, First Trust Company of Montana provided to the City through a Quit Claim Deed a 60-foot strip of land along the north boundary of Skyline School Addition to accommodate a water main extension and potential road right-of-way to connect 2nd and 3rd Streets Northeast.

With the platting and development of Skyline Park Addition to the east and West Ridge Addition to the north and west, subject strip of City-owned land does not align with existing and proposed avenues. Therefore, it is being proposed the strip of City-owned land be exchanged for the portion of 35th Avenue Northeast being dedicated on the subdivision plat of West Ridge Addition, Phase II. The existing water main in the strip of land would be abandoned in place.

Chapter 3.04 OCCGF required a public hearing before final consideration of the trade of City property and further allows the City to trade or exchange for property of like kind with equal or greater value without involving a bidding process.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Gary Knudson, owner and developer, asked the Commissioners to support the exchange of City property for street right-of-way. No one appeared to speak of opposition. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the exchange of a strip of City-owned land along the north side of the Skyline Education Center for the portion of 35th Avenue Northeast being dedicated on the subdivision plat of West Ridge Addition, Phase II .

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9441 annexes the area within Castle Pines Addition, Phase II, a 28 lot single-family residential subdivision along segments of 25th Avenue South and 16th Street South. The accompanying Agreement contains terms and conditions associated with subdivision and annexation.

In March, the City and County Commissions conditionally approved the preliminary plat of Castle Pines, Phase II. The Planning Board, held a meeting July 13, 2004, and recommended approval of the final plat of Castle Pines, Phase II, and annexation of the property contained therein subject to the following conditions: applicant execute an annexation agreement, all applicable fees be paid by the applicant, any errors be corrected, final engineering documents for required public improvements to serve the subdivision are subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9441. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9441 and approve the final plat and Annexation Agreement all related to Castle Pines Addition, Phase II.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Ordinance 2890 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "B" Area District, to Castle Pines Addition, Phase II, upon annexation of same to City. Subject development consists of a 28 lot single-family residential subdivision along segments of 25th Avenue South and 16th Street South.

The Planning Board, held a meeting July 13, 2004, and recommended approval of the final plat of Castle Pines, Phase II, and annexation of the property contained therein subject to the following conditions; the applicant execute an Annexation Agreement acceptable to the City; all applicable fees be paid by the applicant; any errors be corrected; final engineering documents for required public improvements to serve the subdivision are subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9434. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2890.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

City Manager John Lawton reported that the declared purpose of state regulation and control of the manufacture, sale, importation and distribution of alcoholic beverages within Montana was to protect the "welfare, health, peace, morals and safety of the people of the state." 16-1-101 MCA. The quota on the number of liquor license allowed within a city and within five miles of city limits for all-beverage licenses, beer licenses and restaurant beer and wine licenses was set by state statute. For Great Falls, including the five mile area beyond city limits, the number of premises with all-beverage licenses exceeded the state quota by twenty-two; the number of premises with beer licenses exceeds the state quota by one; the number of premises with restaurant beer and wine licenses are within quota by a margin of ten.

Therefore, in the interest of protecting the welfare, health, peace, morals and safety of the residents of the City of Great Falls, it was deemed necessary and urgent to impose a Moratorium within the City of Great Falls prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on additional premises with all-beverage and/or beer licenses until the permissible quota of all-beverage and/or beer licenses under state statutes for the City of Great Falls exceeds the existing number of such premises licensed and selling such alcoholic beverages. The Moratorium shall not apply to existing premises within the City limits with all-beverage and beer licenses or such licenses relocation; and, also excepting existing or future premises with restaurant beer and wine licenses.

The statutory quota for all-beverage licenses was as follows: in incorporated cities over 3,000 inhabitants and within a distance of five miles from the corporate limits thereof, five retail licenses for the first 3,000 inhabitants and one retail license for each additional 1,500 inhabitants, 16-4-201, MCA. The State Department of Revenue has determined that applying the statutory quota to Great Falls and the five mile limit, the quota number of all-beverage licenses allowed was fifty-six. However, because of the greater number of licensed premises in existence before the adoption of the statutory quota, there are now seventy-eight all-beverage licensed premises within the subject area. In other words, all-beverage licenses premises exceed the statutory quota for Great Falls and the five mile limit by twenty-two.

The statutory quota on beer licenses was as follows: in incorporated cities over 2000 inhabitants and within a distance of five miles from the corporate limit of the cities, four retail beer licenses for the first 2,000 inhabitants, two additional retail beer licenses for the next 2000 inhabitants or major fraction of 2,000 inhabitants, and one additional retail beer license for every additional 2000 inhabitants. 16-4-105, MCA. The State Department of Revenue has determined that the quota for the City of Great Falls and the five mile limit for beer licenses was thirty-two. There are thirty-three premises within the City of Great Falls and the five mile limit in operation with beer license. In other words, existing premises with beer license exceed the state quota by one.

The Department of Revenue determined that premises with restaurant beer and wine licenses have a statutory quota of sixteen within the City of Great Falls and the five mile limit. There are six premises within the City of Great Falls in operation with restaurant beer and wine licenses.

Therefore, the number of premises with all-beverage and beer licenses within the City of Great Falls and the five mile limit exceed the statutory quota by twenty-three. Since the purpose of state regulation and control of the manufacture, sale, importation, and distribution of alcoholic beverages within the State of Montana was to protect the welfare, health, peace, morals, and safety of the people of the state and the excess number of premises with all-beverage and beer licenses within the City of Great Falls over the statutory quota was extreme and thereby detrimental to such state regulation and control, it was deemed urgent and prudent to impose a Moratorium within the City of Great Falls and all zoning districts therein prohibiting the establishment of any additional premises until the permissible quota of all-beverage and/or beer licenses for the City of Great Falls exceeds the existing number of such premises licensed and selling such alcoholic beverages in the City of Great Falls.

Said Moratorium shall not apply to existing premises with all-beverage and beer licenses or such licenses relocation; also excepting existing or future premises with restaurant beer and wine licenses.

Moratoriums are effective on passage and for six months after passage; thereafter, they may be extended for one year following a pubic hearing - no more than two such extensions may be adopted.
76-2-306, MCA. It was assumed that a change in the zoning ordinance to accommodate the provisions of the Moratorium would result in the interim or if the need or urgency ceases, would be abandoned.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Those speaking in support of Ordinance 2892 were as follows: Robert Alford, 2601 26th Street South, stated that he was tired of the comments he receives from people regarding the appearance of the City with the Casinos and that the City needed to protect the safety and welfare of the public. Tim Spencer, property owner, stated that he supported this Ordinance and that Bozeman was trying to clean up their City and did not want to end up looking like Great Falls. Ben Forsyth, 900 9th Street South, stated that he supported the Ordinance. He added that the City had irreparable gambling that created bankruptcy, crime, divorce, child and spouse abuse. The City did not need any more Casinos in the City limits. Don Calkins, 1530 5th Avenue South, Neighborhood Council 9, stated that he was in favor of allowing the City Commission to pass this Ordinance. Gloria Smith, stated that the City had more then enough drinking/gambling establishments in the City limits. She added that she concurred with everything that has been stated. Lorin Keller, 25 Comanche Trail, stated that he raised his family in Great Falls and had a concern for the City. He asked if a request was entered in before the Ordinance passed, or was tabled, what happens to that request, is the license transferable? Mr. Keller did ask Commission to approve this Ordinance.

City Manager John Lawton stated that if this was approved, when the City annexes property, the donut area expands; and if the Ordinance passed, this would prevent any new alcohol licenses from moving into the City limits, the current license would have to remain in the donut area. If the Ordinance passes, the license in the annexation would not be able to transfer into the area that surrounds the City within the five mile donut area. He added that with so many licenses over the quota, it would take a long time before the City would grow into the amount that it was over.

Mayor Gray stated that the issue was, if the piece of property was annexed into the City limits, anyone in the five mile radius with an alcohol license would be able to transfer the license anywhere in the City. If the Ordinance passed, the establishment would not be allowed to transfer to a City license.

Mr. Lawton stated that if there was a transfer in the process before the moratorium was voted in, the City would have to look into it to see what the process would be if the transfer would still go through.

City Attorney Dave Gliko stated that once the moratorium was adopted, it goes into effect immediately and that any annexations that would be approved and an establishment with a County liquor license in that annexation would not be able to transfer.

Jerry Clark, 1014 Durango Drive, stated that he was in favor of the Ordinance and that it would be good for business. He added that the City needed to get the numbers of licenses down and to get on with zoning. He also stated that he supported the six months time frame and during this time more information could be brought to the citizens. Kendra Owen, Durango Drive, thanked the City and staff for bringing this issue forward and the she was very grateful that the City was looking into the Ordinance and to consider moratorium. She added that complete strangers notice the casinos more than the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center or Paris Gibson Square.

Those speaking in opposition to the Ordinance were as follows: Micheale Wigen, owner of Spot Bar, stated that the people that have paid more for their licenses should not be affected by this Ordinance. If this Ordinance was to pass it would strip the value of their business that she and her husband have worked for the past twenty years and that their needs needed to be taken into consideration. She added that their license was their retirement and future, and that it was unfair to strip one's assets. Mrs. Wigen stated that the City needed to do legal research with the State of Montana. She asked if it would be possible to be grandfathered in.

City Attorney Dave Gilko stated that when an individual applies to the state to transfer an alcohol license, it would come to the City for approval. By passing the moratorium, the City would be able to deny a license and support the state's quota. He added that the City would not be restricting the licenses, the state's quota already states that. He also stated that the moratorium would stand up to a legal challenge and that when someone applied for a license through the State to transfer an alcohol license, it would then come to the City for approval. The moratorium would allow the City to deny a license and the City would be supporting the state's quota. The City would not be restricting the license; the state's quota restricts the license.

Gary Wigen, stated that the reason the City is over the quota for alcohol license was because of the cabaret licenses. He added that putting the Ordinance in effect was not going to change the amount of licenses the City already has. Viki Gallager, 333 17 Vaughn Road, owner of Frontier Inn, stated that the business that they are in has been in existence for 62 years and in her family for 42 years. She added that after her parents died, she had to purchase the alcohol license that was to be transferable into the City. She stated that she would owe the bank more money than what her license was worth and the next option would be bankruptcy. Ms. Gallager asked if the amount that she currently pays for licenses would remain the same if the Ordinance goes into effect. Clayton Braden, 2708 4th Avenue Northwest, stated that there had not been enough research put into this moratorium and suggested to start over and re-write the moratorium. The City needed to put the moratorium on hold for a month. He added that the City does have too many casinos. Brian Lents, stated that the City should wait on passing the Ordinance and re-evaluate it. He added that the moratorium should be on casinos not liquor licenses. The moratorium would keep new restaurants from coming into the City. George Galleger, stated that the City taking action on the moratorium would be pre-mature. It needed to have an in-depth investigation. He added that he was neither for or against the Ordinance, but that the City needed to put a hold on this. Gayle Morris, stated that he was neither for or against the Ordinance. He asked for clarification of the five mile issue. He added that the City was out of their jurisdiction to deny transfers of licenses issued by the state. Mr. Morris stated that he agreed with the City Attorney that you can control this from the City aspect. Dan Griffin, owner of Griffin's Village Inn in Ulm, stated that the City needed to study more on the moratorium. He asked why all of a sudden the emergency and asked the Commission not to vote in favor of this. May Chase, 2001 3rd Avenue North, stated that she was in favor of the moratorium, but after listening to everyone's comments, she was no longer in favor of Ordinance and that there needed more research before voting on the Ordinance. Melanie Loy stated that she was working on opening the Cheesecake Café, and if their license fell through they would not be able to open another restaurant. She also added that their restaurant had nothing to do with gambling and that she was embarrassed that there had not been enough research and information into the moratorium. She also concurred with Mr. Griffin that an emergency action was not needed.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission continue the public hearing to December 21, 2004.

Commissioner Beecher stated that there were a number of issues that the Commission was not aware of and agreed that there are two different issues and that the Commission needed to thoroughly look into all the comments that were made.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz stated that issued alcohol licenses are required to operate casinos. If you have a liquor license, the holder can have up to twenty machines in their establishment. She also asked if there was any way to bring the establishments in that have paid the higher price for the liquor license.

City Manager John Lawton suggested the City Commissioners table any action and continue the public hearing, amend or deny the Ordinance or give staff direction.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz asked if the County alcohol license was moved into the City, was the County license available to be re-issued. She added a question to ask DOR, was when an establishment closes and the license goes dormant, was there a way to cancel that license after a year passes and if a license had ever been taken away.

Ryan Burke, 1200 24th Avenue Southwest, asked what the emergency of the Ordinance was.

City Attorney Dave Gliko stated that Department of Revenue (DOR) could give the answer and that he did not see how DOR could issue any more City or County licenses. He added that the State's quota was set in 1947 and that there were an excess of establishments that were grandfathered in, putting the state over the quota. Mr. Gliko stated that the City would not be able to allow establishments that have paid a higher price for their license into the City limits if the Ordinance passed.

John Hayes, 619 Carol Drive, stated that DOR would allow another county license to be issued if one was transferred into the City limits. He added that there was no limit for beer and wine licenses in the county.

Mayor Gray stated that the City does have an access of casinos and liquor license. He added that it was not the City that encouraged the banks to give loans against a liquor license.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CDBG Administrator Katrina Stark reported that the purpose of this Consolidated Plan Community Issues public hearing was to allow the citizens, especially lower income citizens of Great Falls, an opportunity to advise the City Commission of the community's issues. Ideas are encouraged as to how federal grant funds can be used to address these issues and help eliminate needs. The comments heard at this public hearing would be considered by the City Commission in allocating the 2005/2006 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Grant funds.

This hearing was not meant to be a format for agencies to lobby for their respective Community Development Block Grant or HOME Grant funding applications. Instead, individuals are encouraged to speak to housing and non-housing community development issues in the City, and especially the effect of these issues on low and moderate income people.

A forum to obtain public input as to the needs of the community was required by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development in order for the City to secure federal grant dollars. The Citizen Participation Plan, adopted by the City Commission on January 18, 2000, stipulates a public hearing to allow citizens, especially lower income citizens, the opportunity to speak of the needs of the community, and to make recommendations to the City Commission of the use of the Community Development Block Grant and the HOME Grant funds to help address issues and eliminate needs.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Glen Stiner, Great Falls Police Department, stated that the Montana Law Enforcement Museum was moving to Great Falls and requested funds for building upgrade. He added that the process for the museum was two to three years and the cost to renovate was $1.5 million.

Judy Lindquist, #5 Open Buckle Road, Vaughn, thanked City staff and the commission for the funds that were awarded last year for the Eagle's Manor Retirement Home and that they were requesting funds again this year to complete their project.

John Stephenson-Love, 300 40th Avenue South #29, President of the Board of the Upper Lower River Road Sewer District, requested $333 Thousand from the block grant for the Upper River Road Water and Sewer District. He added that fifty-eight percent of the residents in that area were low and moderate income families. Mr. Love added that the construction would take place in 2005 and asked that the Commission would award the grant for this project.

Ryan Burke, requested funding for better streets and sidewalks, better paint for curbs and yellow end zones, stop signs for uncontrolled intersections and to better signing for our streets. Also request for better marking in parking areas so people can observe where they can and can not park.

Sheila Rice, 913 3rd Avenue North, Great Falls, represented Neighborhood Housing Services, encouraged the City to maintain and set aside with the CDBG for home ownership opportunities for hard working people and to use the home dollars for homeownership assistance. They thanked the City for their support and looked forward to being included in home ownership opportunities, community block grants and the home dollars.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

No Action Required.
 

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution 9442 sets a public hearing for January 4, 2005, to consider annexation of said Parcel Mark No. 3I, most of which was being platted as a part of Taylor Addition, a five lot single family residential subdivision along the north side of 13th Avenue South between 39th and 43rd Streets. A small remainder portion of said Parcel Mark No. 3I would be added to the lot comprising Third Supplement to Rice Tract.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the applications on October 26, 2004, at the conclusion, they passed a motion recommending the governing bodies approve the Minor Plat of Taylor Addition and the accompanying Findings of Fact and that the City Commission annex what is presently described as Parcel Mark No. 3I, Section 16, T20N, R4E, subject to the applicant fulfilling the following conditions; payment of all applicable fees; preparation of a certificate of title by a title company to be filed with the minor plat; correction of any errors; entering into an annexation agreement containing typical terms and conditions associated with annexation.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9442.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Ordinance 2894 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, to Parcel Mark No. 3I, Section 16, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, Cascade County, Montana, upon annexation to the City, and rezones the abutting incorporated southerly portion (approximately 45 feet) of Third Supplement to Rice Tract from "GC" General Commercial, "D" Area District, to "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District. A majority of subject property, located along the north side of 13th Avenue South between 39th and 43rd Streets, is being platted into Taylor Addition, a five lot single family residential subdivision.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2894 on first reading and set a public hearing for January 4, 2005, to consider adoption of Ordinance 2894.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Resolution 9443 sets a public hearing for January 4, 2005, to consider annexation of said Parcel Mark No.s 7B and 7C, which combined, comprise the site for the community soccer complex currently under construction. Parcel Mark No. 7 is a vacant 4-acre tract of land owned by the City, located along the east side of 57th Street and south of the 10th Avenue North entrance to MAFB. The segment of 10th Avenue North proposed to be annexed abuts the north boundary of the soccer complex.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the annexation on November 23, 2004. The only public testimony presented was from Bob Bourgeois, 5128 Silverwood Court, who raised questions about who eventually assumes maintenance responsibility for the complex, what is the potential impact of surface runoff and ground water upon the nearest residential neighbors, and what measures will be taken to insure the parking lots don't become an after hours congregating place for youth. Public Works Director Jim Rearden responded to the questions and comments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Board passed a motion recommending the City Commission annex Parcel Mark No.s 7, 7B and 7C, Section 3, T20N, R4E, Cascade County, Montana, and a segment of 10th Avenue North between 52nd and 57th Streets

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9443.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Ordinance 2895 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "B" Area District, to Parcel Mark No.s 7, 7B and 7C, Section 3, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, Cascade County, Montana, upon annexation to the City. Said Parcel Mark No.s 7B and 7C comprise the site for the community soccer complex currently under construction. Parcel Mark No. 7 is a vacant 4-acre tract of land owned by the City, located along the east side of 57th Street and south of the 10th Avenue North entrance to MAFB.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2895 on first reading and set a public hearing for January 4, 2005, to consider adoption of Ordinance 2895.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

If approved on final reading, Ordinance 2891 would rezone Lots 1 & 2 of the Replat of the West 100.0 Feet and a Portion of the Vacated Avenues and Alleys in Blocks 416, 418, and 453, Original Townsite, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of 2nd Avenue South and 2nd Street South, from Heavy Commercial Business (B-4) to High Density Business (B-3).

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2891 on first reading and set 7:00 PM, Tuesday, December 21, 2004, as the public hearing and final reading date.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini reported that Ordinance 2893 pertains to small purchases not exceeding the amount established by 7-5-4302 MCA. The change in the Ordinance was administrative "clean-up" and would bring the code more in line with the City Charter. This change eliminates the set dollar amount requiring bids in the City Ordinance, and allows procedures to be developed and set by the City Manager or his/her designee.

Fiscal Services Department was updating Fiscal Services Policies and Procedures and part of this review included examining the purchasing policies already in place. When reviewing the policies it was noted that actual dollar limits were stated in City Ordinance. The change in the ordinance would allow the City Manager to adjust policies for dollar limits for small purchases without a change in ordinance and bring the code in line with the City Charter.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2893 on first reading and set the second and final reading for December 21, 2004.

Commissioner Hinz asked what a small purchase was and when the last change was. Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini stated that anything under $5,000 and the last change was 1990 or 1993.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

The Sign Code Committee was recommending Ordinance 2896. This ordinance would serve to replace the existing regulations, and the interim regulations, which govern all signs for the City of Great Falls. The ordinance is intended to replace/update the existing Sign Code and move the location of the Code from Title 15 OCCGF to Title 17 OCCGF. It will become Chapter 60 of the proposed Unified Land Development Code.

The goals of the proposed Code were: to promote a positive economic and business climate through distinctive and effective signage; to improve the community's image by eliminating sign clutter; to encourage signage of a character and scale consistent with the built environment and desired future vision; to protect health and safety including damages caused by distractions of motorists; to provide a code that is readily understood; and to provide binding code implementation and enforcement.

Significant changes include: eliminating the clutter caused by uncontrolled temporary signs; encouraging signage to correspond to the scale of the built environment, and provide the design review board with the ability to negotiate signage that fits into the premise. Another major change was regarding interpretation. The new Code specifically assigned a maximum square foot sign allowance to the premise/property instead of to each business on the property.

Strong enforcement was recommended by the Committee in order for the community to receive the intended benefit from this new Code. Non-conforming signs, except billboards, are proposed to conform to the provisions of this proposed Code by December 31, 2014. The Committee was also recommending the City initiate an "incentive program" to encourage earlier compliance.

Commissioner Beecher asked how the public could view a copy of the revised sign code. Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton stated that the City web-site had available to the public at www.ci.great-falls.mt.us or the Public Library, City Manager's or City Clerk's office.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2896 on first reading and set a public hearing for January 4, 2005, at 7:00 PM.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission accept the Consent Agenda as printed.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

John A. Chase was appointed as the City of Great Falls representative to fill the remainder of a three-year term on February 18, 2003. That term will expire December 31, 2004. The Conservation District has recommended that John A. Chase be reappointed as the City of Great Falls Representative.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission reappoint John Chase as the City of Great Falls Representative to the Cascade County Conservation District Board for a three-year term, through December 31, 2007.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Mr. Harding was appointed to the fill the remainder of a two-year term on May 6, 2003. Mr. Madson was appointed to the City-County Planning Board on January 2, 2001, and reappointed for a two-year term on December 3, 2002. Both members are eligible for and interested in being reappointed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Jovick-Kuntz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission reappoint John Harding and Greg Madson to the City-County Planning Board for two-year terms as "citizen" members, expiring December 31, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

Dick Michelotti was elected as the Local Government Study Commissioner on November 2, 2004. Mr. Michelotti recently resigned his position; therefore, it is necessary for the City Commission to appoint a new member to fill his vacancy.

MCA 7-4-4111. states that a vacancy on a study commission shall be filled by appointment by the governing body of the local government being studied by the commission. The appointment shall be made within 30 days of the date the vacancy occurs.

The City Commission may choose another candidate for this elected position, appoint someone at large or seek applicants.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission appoint R. Jane Meyer to the Local Government Study Commission.

Motion carried 5-0.
 

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS

George Littlefield, of Neighborhood Council 4, asked the Commission for a letter of support to give to the Legislature in January to double the fines in school district areas. They are requesting to amend the present law and double fines in school and playground areas. He added that the break down of fines collected would be distributed as; fifty percent would go into the general fund; twenty-five percent issuing authority signs and curbing; and the additional twenty-five percent would go into a fund for educational programs.

Commissioner Beecher thanked Mr. Littlefield for his efforts in this issue and that doubled fines would get the public's attention. Mayor Gray asked staff to prepare a letter of support for the doubled fines.
 

PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATION.

Mike Witsoe, stated that the Parade of Lights had twenty-three participants and suggested moving the date of the parade to the first weekend in December and the Christmas stroll to the second Friday in December and maybe this would bring more people to the downtown area. He added that these events were a great success. He also added that the down town streetscape looks great. Mr. Witsoe congratulated Norma Ashby for her service to the City of Great Falls. Also he stated that Great Falls has the finest Fire and Police and other City employees that do a great job in Great Falls. He thanked staff and the City for a good year.
 

ADJOURNMENT