Budget Officer Melissa Kinzler reported that prior to adoption of the City's annual budget the City was required to hold two public hearings on:

1. the proposed annual budget, and
2. the intent to budget an increase in revenue from property taxation (a separate agenda item).

Extending the budget hearing over two Commission Meetings provided reasonable time to review the budget, receive additional input and consider budget modifications.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, asked about the time frame for public comment and asked if the public be allowed to make comments at the July 19, 2005, Commission meeting. Ms. Kinsler stated that public comments would be accepted at the next meeting.

There being no one further to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9495. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission continue the budget hearing to the City Commission meeting on July 19, 2005.

Motion carried 5-0.

Budget Officer Melissa Kinzler reported that MCA 15-10-203 requires local governments to advertise their intent to increase tax revenues and hold a public hearing.

MCA 15-10-420 authorizes a property tax levy increase of "one-half of the average rate of inflation for the prior 3 years." The Consumer Price Index showed a 2.5 percent average increase. Therefore, the City was allowed and proposed a 1.25 percent property tax levy increase.

MCA 15-10-420 and 2-9-212(2a) also allow property tax levy increases for premium contributions for group benefits. The City proposed an additional 3.25 percent property tax levy increase for health insurance premiums.

The total proposed allowable property tax levy increase was 4.5 percent. The average cost of this increase for a house with a market value of $100,000 would be approximately $11.73 a year.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open.

Dona Stebbins, 811 8th Avenue North, asked for clarification of the laws pertaining to the Resolution. She stated that she questioned E through I on the Resolution and that she had looked into the Montana Code Annotated section that pertains to the Resolution. She stated that the code read that levies implemented under this section must be calculated separately from the mill levies and are not subject to the inflation factor. She paraphrased the law to read, "if tax billing software was capable, the county treasurer shall list separately the cumulative mill levy or dollar amount on the tax notice sent to each taxpayer and the amount reported to the Department of Administration." Also, the language that the mill levy must be described as a permissive mill and no where in the Resolution did she find that language. Budget Officer Melissa Kenzler stated that the Resolution 9494 did not set the mill levy. The mill levy will be set in July or August; this was the Resolution of intent to increase property tax.

Ms. Stebbins also asked if the City looked into pooling with the County for health benefits to save on the rising cost of health insurance. City Manager John Lawton stated that the City looked into pooling health benefits with the County, but the City was at a higher level of benefits and that the City benefit plan was self-funded with a private carrier. He added that the County has limited flexibility of benefits and funding.

Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, asked what kind of process was followed regarding this Resolution. He suggested that since action on the the budget was postponed, the Commission should consider postponing action on the Intent to Increase Property Tax until July 19, 2005.

Mayor Gray, in response to Ms. Stebbins question, stated the City has meetings with the other governmental agencies such as the Air Force and County. He added that he did not see a reason for postponing Resolution 9494.

There being no one further to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9494. Mayor Gray declared the public hearing closed.

City Manager John Lawton stated that Resolution 9494 was an intent to raise property taxes and it was not a final decision. He also stated that the City proposed increase was not the maximum allowed. Budget Officer Melissa Kenzler stated that the City could have added 1-2 more mills.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9494.

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Forest Glen South is a four lot subdivision located between the MSU-College of Technology and 26th Street South. Resolution 9478 annexes the easterly two lots in the subdivision (Lots 1 and 2) and Ordinance 2915 assigns a zoning classification of "C" Residence Use, "B" Area District, to Lot 1, with a conditional use allowing multiple office buildings and "C" Residence Use, "B" Area District to Lot 2. The Annexation Agreement contains terms and conditions associated with annexation of the Lots.

On June 22, 2004, the City-County Planning Board conducted a public hearing and at its conclusion passed a motion recommending the City Commission approve the minor plat of Forest Glen South Subdivision, the accompanying Findings of Fact and the annexation of the area subject to the following conditions: any errors or omissions be corrected, the final engineering drawings and specifications be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval, entering into an annexation agreement, preparing and submitting revised drawings for the minor plat and utility plan, preparing and submitting a metes and bounds description of unincorporated abutting segment of right-of-way for 26th Street South, paying all fees, providing a financial surety in the name of the owner/developer and City to cover the Subdivision's proportionate share of the costs; obtaining the final site and landscaping plans, and ensuring that no more than two vehicular approaches be permitted to Lot 1 from 26th Street South.

At the June 7, 2005, meeting the Commission voted to table action to allow additional time to address an issue regarding 26th Street South.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission remove from the table Resolution 9478, Ordinance 2915, the Minor Plat of Forest Glen, the accompanying Findings of Fact, and the annexation agreement pertaining to Lots 1 and 2 contained therein.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher, Hinz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9478, approve the Minor Plat of Forest Glen South, the accompanying Findings of Fact, and the annexation agreement pertaining to Lots 1 and 2 contained therein.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2915.

Motion carried 5-0.

City Attorney Dave Gliko stated that Ordinance 2900 was adopted as an interim ordinance on February 1, 2005, for a period of six months, which will expire August 1, 2005 unless extended by the City Commission for up to one year.

The regulations in Ordinance 2900 are meant as interim regulations governing gambling establishments and casinos. The interim ordinance specifies zoning districts allowable for gambling/casino establishments during the interim period, and establishes required distances casino are to be from schools and places of worship. Casinos that are expanded, remodeled or relocated would also need approval of the Design Review Board and would need to comply with current codes for signage, landscaping and parking.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission set a public hearing for July 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. to consider extending Interim Ordinance 2900 for up to one year.

Motion carried 5-0.

City Attorney Dave Gliko stated that Ordinance 2920 would codify the current practice of allowing 72 hours for the owner, tenant or agent thereof to remove graffiti defacing any premises in the City.

The Property Maintenance Ordinance, Official Codes for the City of Great Falls (OCCGF) 8.51, was adopted in 1995 and required the owner, tenant or agent to remove graffiti defacing any premises in the city. However, no specific time period was designated for removing such graffiti. Ordinance 2920 amends 8.51.030(N), codifying what has become an established practice to allow 72 hours for the removal of such graffiti after it appears on any premises in the city.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2920 on first reading and set final reading for July 19, 2005.

Commissioner Hinz asked if the 72 hours included weekends and holidays. Community Development Director Mike Rattray stated that it did. Mayor Gray asked when the 72 hour time frame began. Community Development Director Mike Rattray stated that there would be a notice sent to the property owner with a return request receipt by mail to know that the owner received notification upon receipt of the letter.

There being no further discussion, Mayor Gray called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Ordinance 2922 assigns a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, to Skyline Park Addition, Phases 15 and 16, upon annexation. The development consists of 31 single-family residential lots and segments of 2nd and 3rd Streets Northeast and 39th and 40th Avenues Northeast.

On March 26, 2002, the Planning Board held a public hearing and at its conclusion recommended the City Commission assign a zoning classification of "A" Residence Use, "A" Area District, to Skyline Park Addition, Phases 15 & 16.

It was anticipated the City Commission, following the public hearing on August 2, will consider an annexation resolution, annexation agreement and final plat for Skyline Park Addition, Phases 15 & 16, simultaneously with Ordinance 2922.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2922 on first reading and set public hearing for August 2, 2005, to consider adoption of ordinance 2922.

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Ordinance 2923 would amend the Official Code of the City of Great Falls (OCCGF) to create "Title 17 - Land Development Code" which would include a new and updated set of guidelines, requirements and standards to help govern zoning and physical growth and development within the City.

In May 2003, the City hired the consulting firm, Vierbicher Associates, Inc., to work with members of the community and City staff to develop the Land Development Code.

Numerous reasons drove the need and interest to conduct a thorough and comprehensive update of the City's existing land development codes which included:

1. The 1930 zoning code, with its multiple revisions, no longer met current development expectations and standards;
2. Related land development provisions were scattered throughout the city code book;
3. Ambiguous language within the current code needed to be clarified;
4. Repetitive provisions needed to be combined;
5. Errors in the zoning map needed to be addressed; and,
6. Additional tools needed to be created to help implement the planning goals, strategies and actions identified in the newly adopted Growth Policy, Transportation Plan, and Missouri River Urban Corridor Plan.

The proposed Code would combine all land development provisions into one portion of OCCGF and would be titled, "Title 17 - Land Development Code." In general, this effort would result in the following:

1. Updated definitions;
2. Updated administrative and enforcement procedures;
3. Updated zoning districts, uses, and standards;
4. Updated sign standards;
5. Updated subdivision and platting standards;
6. Updated parking and landscaping standards;
7. Updated floodplain and storm water management standards, and,
8. New provisions for transportation facilities, outdoor lighting, hillside development, and erosion control during site development.

Community involvement was a key component in the development of this proposed Code. City administration appointed two groups to work closely and directly the consultant. These groups were:

1. The "Land Use Advisory Committee," consisting of a broad section of community leaders, special purpose groups and City staff; and,
2. The "Focus Group," consisting of land development code users, including realtors, architects, engineers, and land developers.

Vierbicher Associates also conducted stakeholder interviews and meetings with Neighborhood Councils, in addition to using the results of a public visual preference survey conducted for the Growth Policy. A public open house was held in October 2004, to unveil the proposed Code and to provide opportunity for individual discussion. Several presentations were also provided by staff to Neighborhood Councils, the Great Falls Homebuilder's Association, the Great Falls Realtor's Association, and the Great Falls Conservation Council. Numerous comments were received during the public comment period, including the Planning Board's public hearing.

The draft Code has been available for public review and comment since its unveiling at the October 2004 open house on the City's web site, the Great Falls Public Library and at the City-County Planning Office.

To assist the general public, current and future Code users, the Planning Board and the City Commission in its review and understanding of the proposed Code, a summary was prepared that generally compared the current Code with the proposed Code, which was also posted on the City's website.

In the 1974 case of Lowe v. Missoula, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that a municipality must demonstrate that its zoning regulations were made in accordance with its growth policy, as well as several Court required findings, as specified in MCA 76-2-304. As such, Chapter 20 (Land Use) and Chapter 24 (Subdivision and Platting) of the proposed Code specifically list each of the required findings within the "Legislative Findings" and "Purpose" sections and specifically state that each Chapter "is established to promote the public health, safety, and welfare and is intended to accomplish the following purposes." The stated purposes are in fact the same findings listed in MCA 76-2-304, regarding municipal zoning and the rezoning of land.

On June 14, 2005, the Great Falls City-County Planning Board conducted a public hearing and unanimously passed a motion recommending that the Official Code of the City of Great Falls be amended to incorporate updated land development procedures, guidelines, standards and provisions to be titled as, "Title 17 - Land Development Code" and further recommended that the City Commission adopt Chapters 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 46, 54, 58, and 64, as presented or as amended per testimony received during the Planning Board public hearing; and that the City Commission consider, during its public hearing process, the public comment and testimony the Planning Board received on Chapters 28, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, and 68.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2923 on first reading and set the first public hearing for August 2, 2005, to consider adoption of Ordinance 2923.

Mayor Gray asked for any comments. Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, suggested the Ordinance was not ready for a first hearing because the committee did not include a member with environmental interests.

Mayor Gray stated that there was not a legislative requirement or any other requirement regarding the constitution of this advisory group.

Melody Brown, Great Falls Association of Realtors, 1019 9th Street South, stated that at the Planning Board meeting there were sections selected out of the plan that needed to be looked at and that she had reviewed the plan again and the issues brought up had not been addressed in the Ordinance. She added she was concerned the Ordinance would go through as written without addressing these issues.

Planning Director Ben Rangel stated that some of the issues raised at the City-County Planning Board hearing were addressed and changes were made to the land development code. The changes made were provided to the Commission before the work session this evening. All revised changes were available on the City website for review.

Motion carried 5-0.

City Attorney Dave Gliko reported that Resolution 9503 would set a fee schedule for case report copy requests made in the City Attorney's Office. The fees were modeled after the Montana Code Annotated for Medical providers.

The City Attorney's Office assumed responsibility of releasing case reports in April 2005 because the information requested is defined as Confidential Criminal Justice Act information and in order to ensure compliance with the Act, a Prosecutor must review the report prior to its release. Secondly, it resolves a potential liability issue relating to either the improper release of information by the Police Department or the improper withholding of information. With City Attorney staff review, both issues were resolved.

The City Attorney staff now spends a greater amount of time reviewing, copying and delivering case reports and related information. The fees requested will assist with the increased workload related to the release of this information.

This matter was removed from the agenda for the June 21, 2005, Commission meeting due to some concerns by local media. As a result, changes were made to the original resolution to emphasize these fees apply specifically to information defined as confidential criminal justice information as defined in MCA 44-5-103(3) and providing for a procedure to allow indigent applicants access to the information. These changes guarantee access to everyone and should resolve the concerns of the media.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9503.

Motion carried 5-0.

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

Motion carried 5-0.

At the June 21, 2005, City Commission meeting, six members were appointed to the Great Falls Planning Advisory Board. The Board still has openings for three more members. Once this appointment was made, the City would continue to accept applications to fill the remaining two positions.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission appoint Joseph Michael Schaffer to Planning Advisory Board for a term through December 31, 2007.

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Meadowlark Addition No. 4 is located southwest of Grande Vista Park and immediately east of Flood Road and consists of 18 single-family residential lots.

On June 14, 2005, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing and at its conclusion unanimously passed a motion recommending the City and County Commissions approve the preliminary plat of Meadowlark No. 4 Addition and the accompanying Findings of Fact subject to the following conditions: any errors or omissions be corrected, final engineering approval by Public Works Department, entering into an annexation agreement, applicant paying all fees, and a financial surety be established in the name of the owner/developer and City to cover the Subdivision's proportionate share of the costs.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the preliminary plat of Meadowlark Addition No. 4 and the accompanying Findings of Fact subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated by the Planning Board.

Motion carried 5-0.

George Littlefield, 4225 Morningside Circle, Neighborhood Council 4, reported to the Commission the progress on Heren Park. He stated that the Neighborhood Council spent $80,000 on the park improvements which included grant money received last year. He added that Heren Park now has grass growing, a sprinkler system in, 113 trees planted and walk-ways. They just received $18,000 worth of playground equipment which will be installed in the near future. He thanked Park and Recreation for their help with the project.

Mr. Littlefield stated that he drives for a local rental car agency and that he had been shuttling people to and from the airport. He received comments on how well Great Falls had accommodated the tourists that came to Explore! The Big Sky and how much they had enjoyed all the exhibits. He added that it was a job well done.

Mayor Gray concurred with Mr. Littlefield on Explore! The Big Sky. He stated that the City did not receive the turnout they were hoping for, but it was an incredible 34-day event. He added that he enjoyed the Indian Symposium which was a first of its kind ever held in the United States. He added that the entire event was well done.

Mike Sullivan, 2004 3rd Avenue North, asked the Commission if there could be something done in the City regarding cell phone usage while operating a vehicle. He added that he had almost been struck by a driver who was talking on the cell phone not paying attention to pedestrians.

Mayor Gray stated that this was an issue that was brought before the Legistature and was voted down. He added that it was something that could be looked into by staff and possibly something done through a City Ordinance. Chief Jones stated that this was an on-going issue and they received complaints on this matter. He added that his staff was currently looking into this issue.