Planning Director Ben Rangel reported Ordinance 2923 amends the Official Code of the City of Great Falls (OCCGF) by eliminating the existing zoning code and replacing it with a comprehensive Land Development Code which include updated guidelines, requirements and standards to govern zoning and physical growth and development within the City.

Mr. Rangel stated that staff reviewed comments received during the public hearings held August 2 and 16, 2005, as well as comments received by email or phone and from the City Commission. Following this review, staff discussed each one and proposed a series of amendments which address the issues that surfaced during the comment period.

The following revisions and amendments were proposed to the Land Development Code in response to comments received:

1. Chapter 64 (Nonconformities) was revised, as encouraged by the Association of Great Falls Realtors and several Neighborhood Councils to better acknowledge pre-existing vacant and occupied lots and to allow for their development and redevelopment. In view of these revisions, staff determined that since pre-existing lots would not be treated any differently than any other lots, all references to "pre-existing lots" were deleted. The length of time to reestablish nonconforming uses and structures was also increased to 24 months and all references to the percentage of fire damage or other cause were deleted.
2. The zoning map was revised to designate the Easter Seals-Goodwill properties at Central Avenue and 44th Street South as M-1, Mixed-Use zoning district to better reflect the nature of its operations.
3. The zoning map was revised to designate a block of parcels in west Great Falls as R-5 multifamily zoning district to better reflect adjoining multifamily uses and to address current and proposed uses, as discussed with Mr. Robert Melhoff.
4. Casino, Type 1 and Type 2 were removed from the Airport zoning district as agreed to by the CasiNo group and the Tavern Association, with the understanding that casinos, as an accessory use, would still be allowed. Distance requirements between casinos and residential uses and between other casinos was retained for Type 1 casinos, but not added for Type 2 casinos, as requested by the CasiNo group. Additionally, the size of the casino floor area for casinos, as an accessory use, was not increased as requested by the Tavern Association.
5. Chapter 40 (Outdoor Lighting) was extensively revised to incorporate a number of suggestions from Mr. Brad Kaufman, a local electrical engineer and consultant.
6. No revisions were made to the Code to acknowledge special zoning exceptions for several multifamily dwelling structures in west Great Falls, as requested by Ms. Sue Strickland. However, Chapter 64 (Nonconformities), as noted earlier, was revised to delete the section titled, "Discontinuance due to removal, razing or structural damage greater than 75 percent of market value." This means that if a structure housing a nonconforming use is removed, razed or damaged by fire or other cause, the structure housing the nonconforming use can be reestablished; provide it is reestablished within 24 months. This change also addressed the concern raised by Mr. Art Vender regarding insurance policies and coverage.
7. Chapter 60 (Signs) was revised to incorporate suggested changes by the City's Sign Code Officer.
8. Exhibit 20-1, Chapter 20 (Land Use) was revised to reflect the same allowable uses in the Great Falls International Airport zoning district as are allowed in the 1st and 2nd Industrial zoning districts. The exceptions were for sexually oriented businesses and casinos, Type 1 and 2.
9. Chapter 32 (Transportation Facilities) was revised to incorporate suggested changes by the City Engineer's Office and by Mr. Joe Aline regarding driveway widths for single-family residential and duplex structures.

Additionally, there were three requested or suggested changes that were not made by staff for the noted reasons. These include:

1. No revisions were made to the Code to decrease the minimum width of 60 feet for newly created lots in the R-3 Residential zoning district. Staff stated the requested 50 feet only works where subdivisions provide alleys for access to garages. Both developers and the Public Works Department did not favor the use of alleys due to installation and maintenance costs. Most developers and homeowners prefer the wider lots to accommodate garages along side the housing structure.
2. No additional changes were made to the zoning map to increase the M-2, Mixed-Use Transitional and the M-1 Mixed-Use zoning districts, as requested by Mr. Stuart Lewin. The zoning map had already been extensively revised from an earlier draft to address similar comments previously provided by Mr. Lewin. The boundary and size of the industrial areas between 6th and 26th Streets along River Drive had already been significantly reduced.
3. The Code was not revised to require the building of fences on property lines or that trees be planted far enough away from property lines as to not hang over into the neighbor's yard. Restricting the height of fences to four feet from the front of a house to the front property line also was not included in the Code, as requested by Mr. William Spahr. Staff suggested these were too restrictive.

Staff also suggested that a more thorough effort was needed to find a solution for Hillside Standards and recommended the City Commission direct them to develop a Hillside Overlay District in consultation with representatives from the building community and interested homeowners and bring a new proposal to the Commission within six months.

Mayor Gray declared the public hearing open. Those addressing the Commission regarding Ordinance 2923 were as follows:

Stuart Lewin, 614 3rd Avenue North, stated that the process used to draft the proposed code, and the code itself, were woefully inadequate because no one representing the Missouri River Corridor was on the working committee. He asked the Commission to develop a zoning code that would fit the Corridor better.

Cynthia Schultz, Airport Director, stated that the Airport Authority wanted to keep its casino options open and asked the Commission to reconsider the proposed amendments four and eight. Amendment four stated that Casino, Type 1 and Type 2 were removed from the Airport zoning district as agreed to by the CasiNo group and the Tavern Association, with the understanding that casinos, as an accessory use, would still be allowed. Amendment eight states, "Exhibit 20-1, Chapter 20 (Land Use) was revised to reflect the same allowable uses in the Great Falls International Airport zoning district as are allowed in the 1st and 2nd Industrial zoning districts. The exceptions were for sexually oriented businesses and casinos, Type 1 and 2." She explained that the Airport was not a party to that discussion due to scheduling conflicts. She added that the Airport Authority was pro-business and recognized that the airport was a gateway to the community. Loran Keller, 25 Comanche Trail, explained that the CasiNo group did meet with the Taverns Association to discuss this amendment for the Airport and unfortunately members from the Airport Authority could not attend the meeting. He added that the CasiNo group wanted to keep the gateway to Great Falls clear of casinos and that casinos would still be allowed in the area but only as an accessory use to a business.

Robert Alfred, 2601 26th Street South, explained that the proposed amendments four and eight would allow the gateway into the community (the Airport) to look better without the infiltration of casinos into the area.

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

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz, that City Commission adopt Ordinance 2923, as amended, excluding Chapter 46, Hillside Standards. Furthermore, that the Commission direct staff to develop a Hillside Overlay District in consultation with representatives from the Homebuilders Association and interested homeowners and bring such overlay district back to the City Commission within six months for consideration.

Commissioner Hinz asked Ms. Schultz if the request from the Airport Authority came to the Commission with a unanimous vote. Ms. Schultz stated that it did and that the Airport Authority wanted to be a part of the discussion but unfortunately was not because of scheduling conflicts.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that he was troubled with the fact that the Airport was not involved with the amendment discussions that affected airport zoning. He asked staff if the Commission could exclude that part of the Land Development Code from the vote in order to give the Airport Authority an opportunity to be a part of the discussion. Commissioner Hinz concurred.

Planning Director Ben Rangel explained that within Exhibit 20-1 in Chapter 20 Type 1 and Type 2 casinos specifically could be excluded in the airport district.

Commissioner Rosenbaum also stated that the Hillside Overlay District section may not come in the form of an overlay model.

Mayor Gray asked for a motion to amend. Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the original motion be amended to add: "That the Commission exclude within Exhibit 20-1 in Chapter 20, Type 1 and Type 2 casinos in the airport district and direct staff to work with the Airport Authority and others to develop a recommendation that will be brought back before the Commission."

Motion to amend carried 5-0. Motion as amended carried 5-0.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt the Official Zoning Map to accompany Ordinance 2923.

Mayor Gray disclosed that he would abstain from voting on the Zoning Map due to a perceived conflict of interest. He explained that as a result of the new zoning map a piece of property he owned would be rezoned to match the zoning to the current structures on the property. He added that while he was not involved with the development of this property because the structures were already there when he purchased it; the development of the map; or requested that property be rezoned, this action could be perceived as some type of a monetary gain and he wanted to disclose this to the public. He concluded stating that dozens of other property owners in the area were also affected by this change.

Motion carried 4-0-1 (Mayor Gray abstaining).

Patty Gumenberg, Acting Park and Recreation Director, reported that the City golf courses were currently operating at a deficit. Additionally, there was not enough revenue generated to meet bond covenants. Both of these factors were serious and could jeopardize the future of the City-run courses. Last fall, the City took steps to reduce expenses including: elimination of the golf superintendent position, recalculation of the personnel budget, reduction in temporary salaries, operating cost reductions, and deferment of both principal and interest on internal debt for a yearly savings of $160,774. It was imperative that further changes/improvements were implemented to improve the financial health of the golf courses. Staff proposed the City retain a professional company to conduct a Golf Management and Operations Study. This study will analyze the current operations at Anaconda Hills Golf Course and Eagle Falls Golf Club including: management and operational practices and policies; revenues and expenses; debt structure; physical plant/turf management of courses; market area overview to include economic and demographic analysis and competitive golf market analysis; and customer surveys.

Staff prepared a Request for Proposals for this study and received three responses. After a formal review process, the review committee unanimously recommended the City Commission approve a contract with National Golf Foundation (NGF). NGF's proposal stated they would: 1) provide operation and management alternatives; 2) develop a five year business plan for both golf courses; and 3) develop a seven to ten year operations pro-forma to include conceptual estimate of costs for improvements, use projections, and revenue and expense estimates. They will complete this by November 14, 2005.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission approve the contract with National Golf Foundation to perform a Management and Operations Study of the City golf course operation and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Don Ensley, 510 3rd Avenue Southwest, expressed his concern at the need for this study. He stated that the City employed accountants and other professionals who should be capable of running a golf course. He added that running a public golf course should be easier than in the private sector because the City did not have to pay taxes on the land or invest in the land itself and he didn't understand why the City needed to hire a consultant to tell us the courses have been mismanaged. He said that it was no wonder the Golf Courses were in the red when the City paid a former employee a good retirement after he stole money from the golf courses and was never prosecuted. He said the City was owed restitution which could help the golf courses financially. Mr. Ensley clarified this comment by stating he was referring to former Park and Recreation Director Tom Sullivan.

Mayor Gray asked City Manager John Lawton to respond to Mr. Ensley's comments. Mr. Lawton stated that there was a need for this study because there has been a loss situation in the golf course fund for the past few years. He added that City staff and an independent auditor have reviewed the golf course financials and corrective action has taken place. However, there were three basic problems with the golf courses. The first was that the City took on debt when it reconstructed Eagle Falls golf course and the debt has not been met by the revenue stream. The second problem, Mr. Lawton explained, was that golf interest on a national level was declining. Finally, he stated that the whole financial structure of the City's golf courses was based on membership fees which, when compared to other membership fees on local, regional and national levels were on the low end.

He added that staff reduced costs and paid off some of the debt. However, what was needed now was to look at how the City's golf courses fit into the national picture. Mr. Lawton stated that he was sure he and each Commissioner had ideas as to how to resolve the financial issues at the golf courses. However, it would be difficult to compare the City's courses to national standards which was the reason why staff recommended this contract. Sometimes, he clarified, staff was too close to the problem to see the obvious answers.

Mr. Lawton responded to Mr. Ensley's comments pertaining to Mr. Sullivan by stating that he was prosecuted and convicted. Mr. Lawton added that Mr. Ensley was right in that the City was owed restitution since the City only received partial payment. However, he added, the City, as the victim in this case, was at the mercy of the Court system in collecting the restitution. He added that the City's insurance company paid a portion of the restitution before it went bankrupt.

In closing, Mr. Lawton stated that the City needed this study; that it would be a definitive study; and that it would identify tough issues that needed to be dealt with.

Commissioner Hinz asked if the consultant would have everything on the table including the possibility of selling one or both of the courses. Mr. Lawton stated that the consultant would be encouraged to look at all options and recommendations and that staff would provide everything needed to review the courses adequately.

Mayor Gray stated he was questioning if the City should be in the golf business at all and added that Mr. Ensley was correct in stating that the City did not have capital costs or taxes to pay such as the private sector. Mr. Lawton stated that was one option and that the study could assist with that decision in the future, if that was the direction the Commission wanted to go. He offered reassurances that the City wouldn't leave golfers completely in the lurch. He added that it would be a major shock to this community to lose golf entirely.

Mr. Ensley stated there were consequences for cost overruns and the Commission needed to understand that it was spending public dollars. He added that it was time the financial problems at the golf courses were resolved.

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

Coleen Balzarini, Fiscal Services Director, reported that staff recommended retaining Chapman and Cutler, LLP and Dorsey and Whitney, LLP as co-bond counsel to assist the City in developing a strategy for financing of its portion of the Highwood Generating Station, Unit 1.

In April, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for bond counsel legal services for financing its portion of the Highwood Generating Station. The RFP was directed to firms with extensive public power experience, and staff interviewed five firms via videoconference. The firms interviewed were Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe; Preston, Gates, and Ellis; Chapman and Cutler; Koegen Edwards with Nixon Peabody; and Dorsey and Whitney. The interviews produced useful discussions, and staff was impressed by the candidate firms' expertise. Chapman and Cutler was selected for its broad and extensive public power expertise and experience; and Dorsey and Whitney was selected for its knowledge and experience with Montana local governments.

The firms would provide services based on a fee system with one component that reflects time devoted to initial research and development and a second component contingent upon a bond issue. The City would be obligated to pay $12,500 to each of the two firms for the initial phase and the remainder would be contingent on and payable from the actual issuance of bonds.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve engaging Chapman and Cutler, LLP, and Dorsey and Whitney, LLP as co-bond counsel related to the City of Great Falls' share of construction financing for Highwood Generating Station, Unit 1.

Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, stated he looked to the City Commission to protect the interests of the citizens of Great Falls and that he was concerned the Commission was making decisions pertaining to the Highwood Generating Station without first having public discussion as to whether the community wanted the station at all. He added that ultimately the City would be so invested in the plant that when it came time for the public's input, the decision would ultimately have been made. He asked the Commission to provide an opportunity for public debate on this project before it continued moving forward.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that the Commission was involved with the construction of this power plant in order to provide stable clean power to the City and to perhaps the citizens of Great Falls. He said the plant would be constructed with or without the City's involvement.

Commissioner Beecher concurred with Commissioner Rosenbaum. He added that each step along the way for this project provided for public input and that he couldn't disagree more with Mr. Lewin's comments because the Commission has been judicious in its pursuit of this plant.

Mayor Gray said to count him in as a harsh critic of Mr. Lewin because after making his comments, Mr. Lewin left the room before the Commission had a chance to respond to his comments. Mayor Gray concurred with Commissioner Rosenbaum and Beecher's comments, that at each step along the lengthy process for the power plant, the Commission has an opportunity to decide to proceed to go forward or not.

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

Coleen Balzarini, Fiscal Services Director, reported that City staff received a signed petition from the developer of Meadowlark Addition 3 requesting street lights be installed along Beargrass Drive. The petition was for the installation of nine (9) 100 watt HPS street lighting units on 17 foot fiberglass poles with underground wiring. There are 18 properties within Meadowlark Addition No. 3.

The special assessment for the installation cost of the improvements shall be payable over a term not to exceed 15 years. The estimated annual special improvement assessment in the newly created area will be $74.33 for an average lot of 10,510 square feet. The property owners have the right to prepay the assessment as provided by law.

After the street lights are installed there would also be an ongoing estimated annual maintenance assessment of $50.45 for an average lot of 10,510 square feet for energy, transmission, distribution and other ongoing related costs.

MCA 7-12-4301 and MCA 7-12-4333 authorizes the City Commission to create lighting districts and to assess the cost of installing and/or maintaining the district to the owners of the property embraced within the boundaries of such district. On July 19, 2005, the City Commission adopted Resolution 9506 creating the City's Street Light Policy, which allows the City to own and operate any new street lighting districts that would be requested by property owners or developers as allowed by the State of Montana.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9497.

Motion carried 5-0.

Coleen Balzarini, Fiscal Services Director, reported that the Montana Board of Investments agreed to loan the City up to $20,000 for the installation costs of nine (9) city-owned residential street lights along Beargrass Drive in Meadowlark Addition 3. The loan has a variable interest rate that changes annually in February and the current interest rate is 3.8 percent. The term of the loan will be 10 years.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9512 and authorize the City Manager to execute the loan documents.

Motion carried 5-0.

Resolution 9515 renames and combines two existing fees into one new fee called the "Facility and Equipment Surcharge Fee." Combining the fees and allocation of the revenue would result in additional funds to be used for maintenance and upkeep of the Mansfield Theater and equipment. The proposed fee would not affect fees in the Convention Center and other Civic Center facilities. By retiring the Mansfield Theater ticket surcharge, those promoters currently utilizing the City's ticketing system would not have an increase in surcharge fees. This would be an increase for those who chose not to use the City's ticketing system.

The Mansfield Theater currently charges $.25/ticket as a facility and equipment surcharge and $.50/ticket ticket surcharge. The facility surcharge was established with Resolution 8863 and adopted May 20, 1997. The ticket surcharge was established with Resolution 9168 and adopted July 17, 2001.

The Civic Center Advisory Board unanimously supported this proposal.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9515.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission accept the Consent Agenda as printed minus Item 12.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that he had concerns with the Interstate Engineering Agreement for the Natatorium Pool Liner Installation and Gutter System Replacement project because it appeared to him the same contractor was designing, building and providing the supplies for the project. He asked staff why the City did not bid this contract. City Engineer Dave Dobbs explained that professional services agreements do not have to be bid per state law and that the City can use the rotation list for small projects such as this. He explained that this contract was only to design the project and that the construction of the project would be bid out.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated that he was still concerned about the contract because the same company was involved in too many elements of the project. The analogy he used was that the City did not get a "second opinion" on this project.

Mr. Dobbs explained that the timing goal for the project was to take advantage of the Christmas break for schools so there would be little to no disruption for Natatorium users.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated he would like the opportunity to discuss this contract with staff and take action on it at a future meeting.

Motion carried 5-0.

Jose A. Guzman, owner of the property located at 129 Riverview 3 E, requested a variance to OCCGF 17.45.030. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback to 2 feet to allow the applicant to build an attached garage. OCCGF 17.45.030 states that for any property located within an "A" Area district, a garage must be placed at least 40 feet to the rear of the front property line to have the garage outer wall not closer than 2 feet to the side lot line. Mr. Guzman would like to build an attached garage 30 feet from the front lot line and maintain a 2 foot side yard. A review of the historical variance file found numerous garage variances for side yard setbacks in the immediate area.

The Board of Adjustment heard the request on August 11, 2005. Staff stated that they heard from one neighbor who did not object to the variance. After discussion, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to approve the 2 foot side yard variance to build an attached 20 foot x 40 foot garage.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission concur with the Board of Adjustment's recommendation.

Motion carried 5-0.

Harold Poulsen submitted applications regarding the following:

1. Preliminary Plat of Castle Pines Phase III, located in Section 19, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, Cascade County, Montana.
2. Rezoning the area within the Preliminary Plat, upon annexation to the City, from the current County R-2 Low Density Residential District to the City "A" Residence Use, "B" Area District.

Castle Pines Phase III, consists of 16 proposed single family residential lots located in the vicinity of 27th Avenue South and 15th Street South.

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the preliminary plat on August 9, 2005, and at its conclusion unanimously passed a motion recommending the City Commission approve the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: the final plat of Castle Pines Phase III correct any errors or omissions noted by staff including expanding the right-of-way diameter for the cul-de-sac to 110 feet; the final engineering drawings and specifications for the required public improvements be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to consideration of the final plat; entering into an agreement that would include the installation, within two years of the date of annexation, the public improvements as noted; adhere to the agreement dated November 7, 1995, pertaining to the Off-Site Improvement Trust Fund; all applicable fees be paid; and provide an appropriate off-site easement to accommodate the vehicle turnaround at the terminus of 27th Avenue South.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission approve the preliminary plat of Castle Pines Phase III and the accompanying Findings of Fact subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated by the Planning Board.

Motion carried 5-0.

On August 5, 2003, Thomas (Dave) Hartford was appointed to the Parking Advisory Commission for the remainder of a three-year term through April 30, 2005. He was eligible for and interested in being reappointed. Inge Buchholz and Doug Lorello were appointed for three-year terms on April 2, 2002; Maureen A. McInnis was appointed for the remainder of a three-year term on October 21, 2003. These three individuals were not interested in reappointment; therefore, it was necessary to appoint up to three new members for three-year terms through April 30, 2008.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Beecher, that the City Commission reappoint Thomas (Dave) Hartford for a three-year term through April 30, 2008; and appoint Anthony Longin, Jim Mintsiveris and Fred Thiel to the Parking Advisory Commission for three-year terms through April 30, 2008.

Motion carried 5-0.