Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9575 annexes Cottage Grove Addition Phase 1 which is located along the north side of 7th Avenue North and the northerly extension of 49th Street North. Ordinance 2940 assigns a zoning classification of PUD planned unit development district to the property.

In 2001, the City and County Commissions conditionally approved the preliminary plat of Discovery Meadows Addition, consisting of 62 single-family residential lots. The applicant wanted to have Cottage Grove Addition Phase 1 (which was originally referred to as Discovery Meadows Addition Phase 3) zoned PUD planned unit development district to accommodate smaller residential lots ranging in size from 3,779 to 6,106 square feet.

The Planning Board/Zoning Commission conducted a combined public hearing on April 25, 2006 to consider the final plat, annexation and zoning request. At its conclusion, the Zoning Commission unanimously recommended the City Commission assign the requested zoning classification and the Planning Board unanimously recommended the City Commission approve the final plat and annexation provided that the applicant sign an annexation agreement; pay applicable fees, correct any errors or omissions noted by staff and obtain approval of engineering documents from Public Works.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9575 or Ordinance 2940. Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9575 and approve the final plat and Annexation Agreement all related to Cottage Grove Addition Phase 1.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioners Jovick-Kuntz and Hinz, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2940.

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9580 annexes Whispering Ridge Addition Phase 5, which consists of 32 single-family lots along a portion of Whispering Ridge Drive. Ordinance 2941 assigns a zoning classification of R-2 single-family medium density district.

In February 2004, the City and County Commissions conditionally approved the preliminary plat of Whispering Ridge Addition, Phases 4-6, consisting of 43 proposed single-family residential lots located on the upper portions of the coulee immediately east of Mountain View Terrace Addition. Phases 5 and 6, consisting of 32 residential lots, propose to be consolidated on one final plat, with the title being changed to just Phase 5.

At the conclusion of a Planning Board meeting held on April 25, 2006, the Board unanimously recommend the City Commission approve the final plat and the annexation to the City of Whispering Ridge Addition Phase 5, subject to the applicant signing an Annexation Agreement, pay applicable fees; correct any errors or omissions on the final plat noted by staff; and obtain approval of the final engineering documents.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9580 or Ordinance 2941. Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9580 and approve the final plat and Annexation Agreement all related to Whispering Ridge Addition Phase 5.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2941.

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Resolution 9581 annexes Northview Addition Phase 1, which consists of a single 5-acre lot and the abutting portion of 9th Street Northeast. Ordinance 2942 assigns a zoning classification of PUD planned unit development district, to the property. The owner plans to build 9 two-unit residential structures to be sold as part of a condominium association.

On May 9, 2006, the Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Commission approve the requested zoning. The Planning Board unanimously recommended the City Commission approve the Minor Plat and annexation of Northview Addition Phase 1, subject to the applicant signing an Annexation Agreement, paying applicable fees, correcting errors or omissions on the final plat and obtaining approval of the final engineering documents.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of or opposition to Resolution 9581 or Ordinance 2942. Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9581 and approve the minor plat and Annexation Agreement all related to Northview Addition Phase 1.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz asked if the storm water drainage from this addition would go into the retention pond the City was having problems with. Planning Director Ben Rangel stated that the storm water would not be routed to the retention pond in question.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Jovick-Kuntz, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2942.

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that, if adopted, Ordinance 2939 would rezone Montana Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 from C-1 neighborhood commercial district, to C-2 general commercial district with stipulations. The lot is currently occupied by Elmer’s Restaurant and is addressed as 1600 Fox Farm Road. The owner requested the zone change to allow gaming on the premises.

Mr. Rangel stated that the property owner explained that potential purchasers of the property were interested in utilizing a liquor license with gaming machines in conjunction with a proposed restaurant business operation. The current C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning classification permits alcohol sales and consumption but prohibits gaming operations. The requested C-2 general commercial zoning classification permits casinos and accessory gaming.

On May 9, 2006 the Zoning Commission unanimously passed a motion recommending the City Commission approve the request with the following stipulations: casino, type I would not be allowed, accessory gaming, as defined and provided for in the Land Development Code, would be allowed; exterior signage indicating any form of gaming would not be allowed; only uses permitted in a C-1 neighborhood commercial district other than accessory gaming would be allowed; and access to the subject from Fox Farm Road shall be modified to incorporate a joint use driveway with the adjoining property to the south.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. Those speaking in support of Ordinance 2939 were as follows:

John Toenyes, 1600 Fox Farm Road, owner of the property, stated that in 1987 he successfully had the property rezoned to general commercial which allowed him to have gaming on the premises. However, when the City adopted the new Land Development Code, the zoning designation was changed. The new zoning designation would allow a liquor license but not gaming. He stated he was not notified that the zoning would be changed otherwise he would have fought the new zone designation. He added when his property was zoned to allow gaming he did not have any machines in the restaurant. However, in an effort to potentially sell the property to a national restaurant, the gaming provision needed to be added. He said that his intent was to bring in a better business and, he cautioned, that even if the Elmer’s franchise remained in place, they too would want to have the option of gaming on the premises.

Ron Thornton, 5092 Fox Farm Road, presented 150 petitions signed supporting the rezoning request. He encouraged the City Commission to approve the rezoning request.

John Koslosky 38 Treasure State Drive, stated that this issue was not regarding gaming, it was an equity issue. He asked the Commission to restore the zoning Mr. Toenyes enjoyed for 19 years and was changed without notification.

Those speaking in opposition to Ordinance 2939 were as follows:

Randy Lyons, 1800 11th Street SW, stated he was not against Elmer’s, but he was against gaming. He explained that many casinos have been robbed lately, and he did not want another casino close to his home increasing the chance that a robbery would occur. He added that it was well known gaming led to higher addiction rates in a community and that many citizens in Great Falls opposed additional gaming facilities.

Gloria Smith (address unknown) stated that Elmer’s was a wonderful family restaurant. However, if the rezoning request was approved, it could become a bar and casino. She asked the Commission to deny the rezoning request because if they approve it, other rezoning requests will be made which would erode the zoning code that took two years to approve. She asked if this zone request was approved, could a porn shop be located there. Planning Director Rangel stated that it could not because that type of business was not allowed in C-1 neighborhood commercial district. He reminded everyone that the proposal was to allow only those businesses that are permitted in a C-1 neighborhood commercial district except for accessory gaming which was allowed in a C-2 neighborhood district.

Ms. Smith also asked if the City Commission approved this rezoning request, would a precedent be set. Mr. Rangel stated that if other businesses asked, it would be difficult to deny their requests if the Commission approved this request tonight. However, he cautioned, similar stipulations would also apply to future requests.

Dan Treinan, 1201 24th Avenue SW, stated that a formal process was followed when the Land Development Code was adopted. Mr. Toenyes chose not to participate. Now his situation has changed and he wants to change the ordinance in order to capture additional revenue when he sells the restaurant. He added that granting this request would open the door for future rezoning requests from property owners and he opposed that.

Lynn Steinmetz, 1131 18th Avenue SW, Neighborhood Council 1 representative, asked the Commission to deny this request because the neighbors did not want another casino in their neighborhood. She asked the Commission to listen to Neighborhood Council 1 and to the residents of the area.

Ben Forsyth, 900 9th Street South, stated he, along with other volunteers, went to over 600 homes in the Fox Farm area to discuss this issue with the residents. He learned that many people were informed about the effects of gambling and that they wanted less of it in their community. He argued that property values in the Fox Farm area were not increasing at the same rate other areas were that did not have casinos at their entrance. He also learned that people were concerned about government officials who were sworn to save and protect the public but approved businesses that were known to increase crime and suicide rates.

Mr. Forsyth added that according to Montana Code Annotated 76-2-304, a zoning code was to promote health and the general welfare of the community. He argued that gambling does not accomplish that requirement. In closing Mr. Forsyth asked Mayor Stebbins to recuse herself from voting because she received campaign contributions from casino owners.

Bob Church, 715 55th Street South, asked how many casinos there were in Great Falls. Someone from the audience stated 107. Mr. Church suggested that was enough.

Art Dickhoff, 3027 3rd Avenue North, stated that people will not relocate to Great Falls with the detriment of gambling. He suggested that approving this rezoning request would let the camel’s nose into the tent and soon the whole camel would be in it.

Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, stated people cannot believe the number of casinos in Great Falls and that the community has to decide what we want it to look like which includes how many casinos there should be in the City.

Emmett Whalen, 605 Park Garden Road, stated he was opposed to gambling in Montana. He reminded the audience that the Legislature reinstituted gambling to help fund education. Gambling harms people, he added.

Mike Whitsoe, asked the Commission to listen to the people. The residents do not want more gaming machines in the City.

Loran Keller, 25 Comanche Trail, read his statement into the record that focused on the promise the City Commission made to Fox Farm residents that that the new Land Development Code would preclude any new casino locations. Now, however, he added, a property owner has petitioned to the City Commission to change the zoning of his property so that a casino could be located in the restaurant. Mr. Keller stated that Mr. Toenyes would gain financially if the rezoning request was granted. He asked the Commission to keep the Land Development Code intact and deny the rezone request. He also asked Mayor Stebbins to recuse herself from the vote because of the campaign contributions she received from the casino owners.

William “Bill” Kuhr, 1917 Cherry, asked the City Commission to support the stance that the community does not want another casino in Great Falls.

Ben Forsyth, read a letter from Bryan Lockerby, into the record stating he opposed the rezoning request.

Warren Stam, 2223 Beech Drive, stated that gambling has ruined his life. He suggested the Commission was only interested in money and now, because of gaming, he was on a suicide watch. He added that if he killed himself, the Commission would know the reason why.

Kendra Owen, 1004 El Paso Drive, stated that the City spent a lot of time and effort on the Land Development Code. She requested the City Commission keep the zoning laws in place and deny this rezoning request. She added that gambling was bad for the community because it has a negative impact on the public’s health and safety. She also expressed concern over setting a precedent and the fact that the gateway to the community would have a casino on it. She reminded the City Commission that there were restaurants in Great Falls that were successful without gaming.

There being on one further to address the City Commission, Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher asked Ben Rangel what the definition of accessory gaming was. Mr. Rangel stated it meant any land use that was clearly incidental and subordinate to and customarily found with a principal land use. Mr. Rangel also outlined the requirements of an accessory use which included a separate entrance to the area where gaming machines were located had to be at the back of the building. Commissioner Beecher also pointed out that the proposal included stipulations that would prohibit signing and any other uses that would be allowed in a C-2 neighborhood zoning.

Commissioner Beecher then moved, in order to put the issue on the table, that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2939. Commissioner Rosenbaum seconded the motion.

Commissioner Beecher stated that there was a difference between a casino and accessory gaming. He added he had mixed feelings about this issue. He agreed there were too many casinos in Great Falls, but argued that it was the Legislature that needed to address this issue. He said that Mr. Toenyes was remiss in not following the impact the Land Development Code would have on his property. He added that he did not believe approving this would let the camel in the tent, because of the stipulations tied to the approval. He added that this action would not increase the number of casinos in Great Falls; it would relocate an existing one.

Commissioner Hinz stated that gaming was the most contentious issue the City Commission has had to deal with and was the driving force for the new Land Development Code. She added that in her opinion the community interest outweighed Mr. Toenyes’ need and, therefore, could not support the motion.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz concurred with Commissioner Hinz. She added that this would be establishing a precedent and that full service restaurants were in Great Falls that included Applebee’s and Tony Roma’s, and they did not have gaming machines.

Commissioner Rosenbaum stated he concurred with Commissioner Beecher’s statements. He added that Elmer’s was not, in his opinion, neighborhood commercial and that he could support the zone change because of the business’s location.

Mayor Stebbins stated she would not recuse herself on this issue because she was not beholden to a special interest group. She added she supported the Land Development Code and that the Commission needed to tow the line.

There being no further discussion, the motion failed 0-5 (Mayor Stebbins, Commissioners Beecher, Hinz, Jovick-Kuntz and Rosenbaum dissenting).

Melissa Kinzler, Budget Officer, reported that the City intended to budget an increase in revenue from property taxation by approximately 1.43 percent, as allowed by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 15-10-420.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of Resolution 9577. Mary Jolley, 1910 2nd Avenue North, stated she opposed Resolution 9577 because the City needed to get a handle on its finances. She pointed out that the City could save over $5 million if it eliminated some expenditures related to energy.

Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, stated that the direction this budget was taking the community was not correct. He added that the finances of the City had real problems and the problems were getting worse. He explained that reserves were going down, expenses were going up and the risks were greater. He asked the City Commission to deny the resolution.

There being no one further to address the Commission, Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9577.

Commissioner Hinz asked what this increase would mean in dollars. Melissa Kinzler replied about $123,000. Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz asked Ms. Kinzler to review some of the cost increases that had to be budgeted. Ms. Kinzler replied that worker’s compensation increased 15 percent, liability insurance increased 10 percent, health insurance increased 15 percent and energy costs increased approximately 10 percent.

Motion carried 5-0.

Budget Officer Melissa Kinzler reported that in accordance with MCA 7-6-4021 and 7-1-4127 the City Commission completed its preliminary budget for the upcoming fiscal year; placed the budget on file and open for public inspection; and published notices for the preliminary budget hearing.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. No one appeared to speak in support of Resolution 9578. Those speaking in opposition to the budget resolution included:

Tim Austin, 1302 Avenue B NW, stated that he hasn’t seen the final budget proposal for the neighborhood pools. Budget Officer Melissa Kinzler explained that the detail in the budget before the Commission was by Fund rather than by line item. She added that she would provide Mr. Austin the information he requested; however, she did not have it with her at the time.

City Manager John Lawton added that the proposed budget included a budget for the swimming pools that was based on present assumptions. However, because of the current community discussion regarding the neighborhood pools, those assumptions might change. If that occurred, then the budget would change as well during the budget amendment process.

Mr. Austin reported that people in Great Falls supported the neighborhood pools and did not want spray grounds. He said he was disappointed in the survey that went out in the utility bill because it did not include an option that only related to repairing the neighborhood pools. All the options included repairs to Mitchell Pool as well as the addition of at least one spray park.

Stuart Lewin, 615 3rd Avenue North, stated that item 2.3 on page 34 of the budget stated that the City Manager was delegated the authority to make transfers or revisions within or among appropriations of any fund. He argued that statement gave Mr. Lawton the authority to move money around between funds and that he should not have that type of authority. Mr. Lewin then asked Commission Beecher about a specific “transfer-in” in the coal plant fund. Mr. Lawton suggested that because the budget contained thousands of unique numbers, staff would respond to each of Mr. Lewin’s questions after verifying the information with the source documents.

Commissioner Hinz stated that the Commission did not operate in the dark regarding the budget, nor did they operate under an aura of suspicion. Commissioner Beecher reminded Mr. Lewin that the City was audited every year from an independent auditor. Mr. Lawton added that not only was the City audited by an independent auditor which is overseen by the State of Montana, the City must also follow the accounting principals for government. He stated that the audit verifies that the City complies with state and federal laws and that the City follows the rules and has earned national recognition for the past 12 years because of it.

There being no further comment, Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed.

Commissioner Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Commissioner Hinz that the City Commission continue the budget hearing until July 18, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that the owner of the property located at T20N, R4E, Section 4, Mark 4B petitioned to annex in the property and to zone it I-2 heavy industrial. The owner was remodeling an existing building for a new Western Ranch Supply retail store.

At the conclusion of the April 11, 2006 public hearing, the Zoning Commission unanimously passed a motion recommending the City Commission approve the zoning request. On the same day the Planning Board passed a motion recommending the City Commission annex the property provided the applicant pay applicable fees; provide an accurate meets and bounds for the property and that the applicant sign an annexation agreement.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9586 and set public hearing for August 15, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.

Commissioner Jovick-Kuntz moved, seconded by Commissioners Hinz and Rosenbaum that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2944 on first reading and set public hearing for August 15, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.

Melissa Kinzler, Assistant Fiscal Services Director, reported that staff received a petition from the developer of Meadowlark Addition No. 4 requesting street lights be installed along Camas 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 proposed district. She added that the special assessment for the installation cost of the improvements would be payable over a term not to exceed 15 years. The estimated annual special improvement assessment would be $110.31 for an average lot of 10,495 square feet. After the street lights were installed there would also be an ongoing estimated annual maintenance assessment of $70.53 for an average lot for energy, transmission, distribution and other ongoing related costs.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission adopt Resolution 9570 and set public hearing for August 1, 2006.

Motion carried 5-0.

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

Motion carried 5-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that the Great Falls Planning Board has recommended the City Commission approve the preliminary plat of West Ridge Addition, Phase IV which consists of 37 residential lots located immediately northwest of Skyline Education Center along the westerly extensions of 35th and 36th Avenues NE. He added that the subdivision was identical to the preliminary plat for West Ridge Addition conditionally approved by the City and County Commissions in November 2002. However, the three year approval period associated with that action had expired. As such, a preliminary plat must again be processed for review and approval.

Commissioner Hinz moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Rosenbaum, that the City Commission approve the preliminary plat of West Ridge Addition Phase IV and the accompanying Findings of Fact subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated by the Planning Board.

Motion carried 5-0.