Community Development Director Mike Rattray reported that the property owner paid the amount owing of $4,826 in full on February 5, 2008, and asked the City Commission to deny Resolution 9724.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. No one spoke in favor of or opposition to Resolution 9724.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed and asked for the direction of the City Commission.

Commissioner Jolley moved, seconded by Commissioners Beecher and Bronson, that the City Commission deny Resolution 9724.

Motion carried 4-0.

Park and Recreation Director Martin Basta reported that the public hearing is for public comment on three options for fee changes at the City golf courses. The golf courses are currently operating at a deficit. In addition, there is not enough revenue being generated to meet bond covenants. Staff presented a financial report to the Golf Advisory Board on October 22, 2007, and again on January 7, 2008, where approximately 40 golfers attended and were invited to comment. Mr. Basta presented PowerPoint slides and discussed the operating budget, overall strategy for financial stability, general fund cash flow support and capital improvements, net revenue bond coverage, and the costs of season passes and green fees of the courses. Mr. Basta explained that Option 1 was developed by the Golf Advisory Board. On October 29, 2007, the Board approved a recommendation that the City Commission implement a user fee consisting of $1 for 9 holes and $2 for 18 holes for all golf course season passes, excluding junior passes. Staff has estimated that this increase will generate approximately $56,600 in user fee revenue. Additionally, the Golf Board recommended an increase in greens fees of $1 for 18 holes at both courses (excluding junior fees). Staff has estimated the increased green fees would generate approximately $7,500 in revenue, for a total increase in revenue under the Golf Advisory Board proposal of approximately $64,100. This proposal was also approved by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board on January 14, 2008, based on the recommendation of the Golf Advisory Board.

Option 2 is based on an alternative recommendation developed by City staff. Upon receiving public comment and correspondence from golfers, staff felt it to be prudent to offer an alternative fee increase to the one originally proposed by the Golf Advisory Board. This alternative includes increasing all season passes by $50 (couples would be $100 or $50 per person; excludes junior fees) and increasing green fees $1 for 18 holes at both courses (excluding junior fees). Staff has estimated the increase in season pass revenue will be $50,300 and the increase in green fees will generate approximately $7,500, for a total increase of $57,800.

Option 3 – At the January 30, 2008, agenda meeting, the City Commission requested that staff prepare a third fee alternative where there would be a multi-tiered approach to season passes. Tier one being a base fee where 80% of pass holders play a maximum of 50 rounds; tier two – base fee plus 10% - 15% of pass holders play a maximum of 100 rounds; and a third tier based on a base fee of 20%, where 5% of pass holders would play unlimited rounds. Season pass holders currently pay $525. The recommended fee changes for Option 3 are: Tier One - $560; Tier Two - $616; and Tier Three - $677. This option requires further commission direction and further staff analysis.

Commissioner Beecher informed everyone that the Commission will be continuing the public hearing because it doesn’t have all the information it would like to have in looking at all the options to be considered. Further, it is the consensus of the Commission that Option 1 is off the table. The Commission will not be considering the $1 or $2 dollar additional fee.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing open. Those making general comments regarding Resolution 9726 were:

Bob Langevin, 40 Prospect Drive, stated that he had another option for the Commission to consider. Mr. Langevin stated that the Commission could come up with a mill levy to support all recreational activities. The money then would be used for a recreational fund only. As this money grew, there would be money for improvements to the pools, recreational facilities and golf courses. Mr. Langevin stated that this would get rid of the debt. If the people vote to do that, then it gives the Commission an option for a mill levy. There would be enough money coming in so fee increases wouldn’t be requested every year.

Joe Ruffatto, 2217 8th Avenue North, #2, stated that he does not golf. Mr. Ruffatto stated that the City of Great Falls needs to consider getting out of the golf business. In the last five years, Mr. Ruffatto stated that non-golfers have paid $1.5 million dollars so that golfers may use the golf courses. He believes this is what the private sector needs to be doing – providing entertainment. He stated that he doesn’t come before the Commission and ask them to buy him a Nintendo because that is what he likes to do. Mr. Ruffatto said there is a growing trend of leasing public courses to private organizations. Private organizations tend to keep costs down and get revenues up. Detroit privatized four of its six courses and went from a $500,000 per year deficit to a $200,000 per year surplus from its golf courses by leasing them. Mr. Ruffato gave similar examples for New York and Chicago. The cities retained ownership of the courses and kept a percentage of the surplus, but had private firms run the golf courses. Mr. Ruffato said that by doing this, the market would determine the price.

Rolland Leitheiser, 136 Sharon Drive, commented that he was a member of the ad hoc committee that looked into privatizing the courses. But, because of the debt, it doesn’t work. Mr. Leitheiser stated that there is tunnel vision for the guys that golf the most. They are the ones that support the golf courses the most. Mr. Lietheiser felt that golfers are leaning towards cyber cards. He said if the fees keep being raised, there will be a decrease in pass holders. Mr. Leitheiser said a lot of the rounds are played in weather that normally wouldn’t be played. He said they will play in the wind and rain if they have the pass. Mr. Leitheiser stated that he doesn’t understand why the golf courses are the only amenity of the City that has to cover itself.

Ira Shaulis, 964 Avenue D N.W., commented that softball fields, tennis courts, parks and pools also have to be taken into consideration. He, as well as other golfers, also pays taxes for those amenities. He stated that the City has two great assets, Anaconda Hills and Eagle Falls. Five or six years ago when there was a fee increase, there was a decrease in memberships. Mr. Shaulis stated that the Commission should consider decreasing the fees to see if the memberships would increase and create more revenue. Mr. Shaulis agreed that the junior fees should not be increased.

Bill Furdell, 5101 Oakwood Court, thanked the Commission for taking Option 1 off the table. Mr. Furdell echoed the first speakers’ comments. Mr. Furdell said he thinks there is a community obligation, not only to juniors, or others who use pools, tennis courts or soccer fields, but also to the golf courses. Many of those people, as well as many older citizens, use the golf courses too. He believes it is an important resource for the citizens of Great Falls. Lastly, Mr. Furdell stated if there has to be an increase, he pleaded for the Commission to keep it simple. He stated that he plays in all types of weather.

Jackie Loman, 205 Skyline Drive N.E., stated that she is the incoming President of the ladies’ league at Eagle Falls on Tuesday mornings and is a member of the Anaconda Hills ladies’ league on Wednesday mornings. Ms. Loman stated she thinks the City of Great Falls has a tremendous amenity to offer the people in the two courses. She moved to Great Falls seven years ago and was pleased with what the City had to offer. She urged the Commission to keep in mind that the health of the community is based on what it has to offer the citizens. Ms. Loman stated that the citizens of the community are not going to use every facility that the City has. But it has to try to give something for everybody. It would be her guess that 50% of the community has never stepped in the library. But, she said she doesn’t suggest not supporting it because she doesn’t use it. The same is true for recreational facilities. Ms. Loman said there is a big need when people are being encouraged to stay active. Ms. Loman stated that golf is one of the greatest lifetime activities that there is. She concluded that nobody likes fee increases, but encouraged the City to keep the golf courses and for everyone to work together to figure out what to do to get rid of the debt.

Cody Harvey, 525 25th Avenue N.E., thanked the Commission for taking Option 1 off the table. Mr. Harvey stated that he knows the Mission Statement of the City Commission and that it is dedicated to recreation. Mr. Harvey said he has to remark that the first time he bought a pass was in 1994 for $185 and now it costs $525. Mr. Harvey said that he has never protested a fee increase. He believes it is a good deal. Mr. Harvey said he golfed 154 times, that is $3.41 per round. Mr. Harvey said rather than being considered a good quality consumer of the product, he is to be penalized. He said the thinking here is that he is one of the whiney, complaining golfers that they perceive to be their customer. He believes it is an unreasonable perception of what the game of golf is all about. Mr. Harvey read a Tribune article that quoted Mr. Basta. Mr. Harvey said the $1.3 million dollar figure is a cumulative dollar figure that started to accrue in 2001. Mr. Harvey said approximately 97,000 rounds of golf were played in 1998, compared to last year when 67,000 or 68,000 rounds were played. That accounts for a 30% drop. Mr. Harvey stated that they need to look at what has changed and what has remained the same. The debt was taken on to improve the golf courses. He stated they need to reconsider that the golfers aren’t their enemy. The golfers are not responsible for the debt. The debt was run up by the management to improve the golf courses. It is their responsibility to manage the income and pay that debt. That is what management does and that is what they are expected to do.

Mayor Stebbins declared the public hearing closed and asked for the direction of the City Commission.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Bronson, that the City Commission continue the public hearing to February 19, 2008, to allow staff time to develop Option 3.

Mayor Stebbins asked if there was any discussion amongst the Commission. Commissioner Jolley stated no.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Discovery Meadows, Inc. is the property owner and developer of Cottage Grove Addition, Phase 3. On January 8, 2008, the Commission approved the Preliminary Plat and Findings of Fact for the subdivision, located in east Great Falls and consists of 28 single family residential lots. The developer is now ready to proceed with the final plat of Phase 3, its annexation and the assignment of City zoning.

Mr. Rangel requested the Commission accept Ordinance 2999 on first reading and set public hearing for March 4, 2008, to consider assignment of City zoning and approval of the final plat of the subdivision and its annexation.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Bronson, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 2999 on first reading and set public hearing for March 4, 2008.

Mayor Stebbins asked if there were any comments from the public. No one responded. Mayor Stebbins asked if there was any discussion amongst the Commission. Commissioner Jolley asked if there are roads in Exhibit A that are still in the county. Mr. Rangel responded that is correct. The specific subdivision that is in question is the cross-hashed portion. The other areas of the map reflect the existing situation where it appears some properties have been annexed but adjoining roadways have not been. An example being where 52nd Street was not annexed along with the Soccer Park because, at the time, a 100 foot strip of land between the street and the park was not owned by the City and thus had no authority to annex it. Commissioner Jolley asked if the roads are sometimes annexed or if they are left in the county. Mr. Rangel answered that, pursuant to state law, whenever a parcel is being annexed into the City of Great Falls and it immediately abuts a roadway, it is required that the abutting roadway segment be annexed as part of the parcel that is under consideration.

Motion carried 4-0.

Planning Director Ben Rangel reported that Meadowlark Partners LLP is the property owner and developer of Meadowlark Addition No. 5. The subdivision, located in southwest Great Falls, was annexed into the City on August 21, 2007, and consists of 20 single family residential lots. The developer would now like to add an unincorporated 20 foot strip of land to Lot 1, Block 6 of the subdivision to provide additional yard space for a new home.
Mr. Rangel requested the Commission accept Ordinance 3000 on first reading and set public hearing for March 4, 2008, to consider assignment of City zoning to the 20 foot strip of land, and consider approval of an amended plat of the lot and the annexation of the strip of land.

Commissioner Bronson moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 3000 on first reading and set public hearing for March 4, 2008.

Motion carried 4-0.

Commissioner Jolley commented that she thinks the minutes should have more specificity. She stated that you can see the DVD and there is a lot more information that is not contained in the minutes. Commissioner Jolley said that she thinks the minutes are for people to see what happened without watching television.

City Clerk Lisa Kunz responded that the minutes are a general summary and not verbatim. A person who didn’t attend the meeting can read the minutes and get a general idea of what took place. Commissioner Jolley stated that she believes they should be more substantial pursuant to the Sunshine Laws.

Mayor Stebbins stated, according to state law, the minutes are in compliance.

Commissioner Jolley asked Commissioner Bronson to comment.

Commissioner Bronson responded that, as an attorney, he would ask what she meant by more specificity. The minutes, as they are prepared, to most viewers, would be considered fairly substantial as is. Commissioner Bronson stated that if Commissioner Jolley felt there was a defect, such as they were not in compliance with the law, then she had to indicate what it was that was missing. Commissioner Jolley stated that these minutes do not reflect accurately what went on two weeks ago.

Commissioner Bronson responded that is an example of not being specific enough. He informed her that if she feels that a particular portion of the minutes is not accurate then she can pull it from the consent agenda and ask that it be rewritten so, if there is an inaccuracy, it can be corrected at that time. Commissioner Jolley stated that she hoped in the future the minutes would have more substance and then perhaps she wouldn’t pull things and specifically point it out. Commissioner Bronson responded that the law does not require specificity to the point where the Commission would have a court reporter here and the minutes would consist of a verbatim transcript.

Commissioner Bronson moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission approve Item 7, the Minutes of January 22, 2008, as submitted.

Motion carried 3-1. (Commissioner Jolley dissenting.)

Commissioner Jolley referred to electric fund payments to SME – January, February, June and December, 2007 – and wondered why the City was paying something all the way back to January of 2007 and said she was curious about the December 2007, payment of $708,760.19. She asked why the payments were spread out like that.

Fiscal Services Director Coleen Balzarini responded that the December payment is the initial billing that she received from Southern Montana for what electricity City customers have used. January and February are adjustments related to NorthWestern Energy’s second reporting of fees that are owed and they are related to the purchases that are incurred out on the imbalance market. All of this billing doesn’t come in at the same time. The June read or bill relates to a new requirement from NorthWestern Energy to provide a third adjustment. So, as the City receives the bills from Southern Montana, and as Southern Montana receives bills from PPL and NorthWestern Energy, Southern Montana passes them on to the City who makes payments after a reconciliation to confirm that it is for energy that has been used by City customers.

Commissioner Jolley stated that two weeks ago there were a couple of payments for the imbalance adjustment and this is not the same thing, but it seems to be similar. Ms. Balzarini answered it is similar. It is not called an imbalance because, the fact is, it’s for energy consumption. It is just a matter of where the City was buying and selling; and, whether it was for a flat block that was purchased from PPL or whether it was for purchases made out on the market, as well as the offsetting sales.

Commissioner Jolley asked Ms. Balzarini if Electric City Power sustains itself - does it charge enough to support itself. Ms. Balazarini answered that the City reflected a loss on June 30th in the Electric City Power fund. That was reported in the Annual Financial Report. No, at this point, it is not sustaining itself.

City Manager John Lawton added that the electrical billing process is complicated. Mr. Lawton said the City has learned that it is always done in arrears, and there are multiple reconciliations of each monthly bill. The reconciliations are usually relating to imbalances and those are governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is complex. It is difficult to understand by looking at one or two bills. He said that you have to look at it over time and work with the rules to begin to understand it. It is not an easy thing. He concluded that he would be happy to work with any Commissioner who wants to learn more about it.

Commissioner Jolley said that there is an ordinance that says Electric City Power shall sustain itself. She said she feels uncomfortable voting for payments that accurately reflect that the City does not follow its own ordinance that Electric City Power shall sustain itself.

Mr. Lawton responded that Electric City Power will sustain itself over time. ECP has had losses in the first couple of years. Those losses will be erased in future years. Some of those losses relate to billing in arrears that takes a long time to settle up and to recover the cost on. Mr. Lawton said, over time, ECP will sustain itself.

Commissioner Jolley stated that the ordinance says it will sustain itself. It doesn’t say sometime in the future. Mr. Lawton said he could provide a projection. Ms. Jolley stated that there are projections in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Bronson, that the City Commission accept Item 8 of the Consent Agenda as presented.

Motion carried 3-1. (Commissioner Jolley dissenting.)

Commissioner Jolley thanked Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton or whoever for the additional information about the spray parks contained in the agenda report. Commissioner Jolley asked if the Commissioners remembered voting for the spray parks. She inquired what the survey said. Commissioner Beecher stated that the spray parks only were an option versus the pools during the survey. Assistant City Manager Cheryl Patton stated that the spray parks were not a part of the bond issue. The bid for the spray parks was awarded by the City Commission however.

Commissioner Jolley moved, seconded by Commissioner Beecher, that the City Commission approve Item 12 of the Consent Agenda as presented.

Motion carried 4-0.

Commissioner Bronson reported that the Commission has before it the Final Scope of Work that was presented by the Hughes, Kellner, Sullivan & Alke firm with respect to their services acting as special examiner for the Commission regarding the City Police Department’s investigation of the situation at the Animal Shelter. Commissioner Bronson stated that he believed the investigator will need some direction from the Commission as to whether or not the scope of work as set forth in her letter of February 4, 2008, is acceptable to them. At Commissioner Jolley’s request, Commissioner Bronson read Elizabeth S. Baker’s letter dated February 4, 2008.
Mayor Stebbins asked if there was any discussion amongst the Commission.

Commissioner Jolley stated that the Commission can discuss it, but not vote on it because it wasn’t on the agenda.

City Manager John Lawton stated that he didn’t believe there was a need to vote on it. The engagement letter has already been signed. This is an informal expansion on the scope of work to express Ms. Baker’s understanding of it and an invitation to get comments back to her if that is not correct. If there are comments, questions, or amplifications, this would be an appropriate time to express those.

Commissioner Jolley stated the Commission could contact Ms. Baker directly. Mr. Lawton stated that they certainly could and Ms. Baker invited that.

Mayor Stebbins opened the meeting to Petitions and Communications.

There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Beecher moved, seconded by Commissioner Bronson that the regular meeting of February 5, 2008, be adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

Motion carried 4-0.