There were no miscellaneous reports and announcements from any members of the Boards and Commissions.

City Manager Greg Doyon reported that, on September 2, 2008, the Animal Foundation made a presentation at the City Commission Work Session and asked what the City’s position was regarding moving forward with the project. By consensus, Commissioners directed the City Manager to work solely with the Animal Foundation to develop a partnership. On February 17, 2009, the Commissioners were updated at the City Commission Work Session regarding the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlined what the share may be and what the operating processes may look like. Thereafter, the parties continued to work on the details of that agreement.

The Animal Foundation modified the design of its proposed facility and, at the April 6, 2010, City Commission Work Session, made a request that the City contribute about $3 million towards the construction of the facility. The facility would be owned by the Animal Foundation. Use of the facility by the City would be through a lease arrangement which would facilitate sharing of operating costs.

On May 12, 2010, at the City Commission agenda meeting, staff was directed to prepare an agenda item for the Commission to take formal action to approve or deny the request from the Animal Foundation to continue with this relationship to construct a new animal control/adoption facility.

Based on the misperception that the City would not perform animal control, Mr. Doyon clarified that no one from the City ever suggested that it wouldn’t have an animal shelter. The question was, does the City continue on with the shelter it has or should the City partner with someone else. And, if the City does partner, what are the costs associated with that, not only in terms of capital outlay, but in terms of operating expenses that would occur after the shelter was constructed.

After discussing the issues at an agenda setting meeting, there was a lot of discussion about what to do from this point forward. He noted that his memo was precise and set forth that, until he gets majority direction from the Commission, the City would continue to operate as it has been to the best of its ability with the resources that have been given through the budget process. He has heard that the Animal Foundation took offense to his memo. Mr. Doyon discussed the Animal Foundation’s response to his memo and pointed out the Foundation did note that the expenses that were outlined do not consider the operating costs associated with the Shelter. Mr. Doyon explained that he didn’t advance a proposal to the Commission because he felt the Commission and community needed a complete and clear picture of what the costs would be to support a new shelter.

Mr. Doyon discussed draft language in the MOU and that financing options have been presented to the Commission to try to accommodate the Commission’s initial direction which was to develop a partnership. Mr. Doyon concluded that there has been a good working relationship with the Foundation.

Commissioner Jolley moved, seconded by Commissioners Burow and Jones, that the City Commission deny the request from the Animal Foundation to partner with the City to construct a new animal control/adoption facility.

Mayor Winters asked if there were any inquiries from the public. Hearing none, Mayor Winters asked if there was any discussion amongst the Commissioners.

Commissioner Burow’s commented that this will allow the Animal Foundation to move ahead with its plans. The City cannot commit $3 million dollars at this time.

Commissioner Bronson agreed that the Commission needed to provide some direction to the Foundation. But he disagreed with denying the request to continue the efforts to partner with the Foundation. The current shelter is inappropriate. Anything that the City does to keep it going is only justified in the very short term. He is concerned that in denying the request the Commission is foreclosing on a tremendous opportunity for a good partnership that he believes is in the best interest of the animals and this community. He was also concerned that the City has no plan on the table to deal with the current inadequate shelter facility.

Commissioner Jolley commented that the Commission and City staff have tried to develop a plan with the Animal Foundation. She believes the Commission should concentrate more on other aspects of the City budget. She agreed that the current shelter is inadequate. The City does realize that it needs a new shelter. She suggested having City staff find a financially sound plan to accomplish that.

Mayor Winters commented that he doesn’t believe anyone disagrees that the current shelter is in disrepair and not safe for the health and welfare of the animals and the people working there. He commended the Animal Foundation for its participation in working with the City to try to find a solution. There has been no solution. This gives the Animal Foundation the opportunity to start its program. Right now, there isn’t $3 million available, nor is there $15,600 for monthly payments. He realizes the City does need something new. But, not at this time and not at this expense.

Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Bronson dissenting).

Public Works Director Jim Rearden reported that the Citizen’s Convenience Center has been in operation since the 1990’s and serves as a transfer site for homeowners and small businesses who can dispose of refuse for a fee within the City instead of travelling approximately nine miles one way to the High Plains Landfill. It also operates as a recyclables drop-off site and a staging area for collection of recyclables at three outlying facilities, as well as a commercial cardboard route that currently serves about 80 customers. The operation has consistently operated at a loss. However, annual losses have been reduced from $151,000 in 2004 to $67,000 in 2009 by reducing expenses, raising fees incrementally, adjusting staff and staff responsibilities, and seasonally reducing days of operation. The expenses and subsequent losses have been estimated to be attributed to 68% to the transfer operation and 32% to the recycling side of the operation. Recent downturns in recyclable markets have also reduced revenues. To date, the operating losses have been subsidized solely by the City sanitation operations which have put undue strain on the City sanitation budget. The facility serves not only City sanitation customers, but also Montana Waste customers, County residents and even residents from outlying counties and communities. The breakdown of users of the transfer operation in 2009 was City sanitation customers at 55%, Montana Waste customers at 16% and County residents at 29%.

At the request of the City Commission in an effort to see if privatizing the facility would reduce operating costs, the Public Works Department solicited bids for operation of the Citizen’s Convenience Center. An addendum was created to clarify questions asked at the mandatory pre-bid conference. Included in the addendum was an extension of the deadline for bids from April 21 to April 28, 2010, to allow bidders more time to clarify their questions. Montana Waste and the City of Great Falls submitted bids to operate the facility. The bid award was postponed by the City Commission on May 4, 2010, to allow City staff additional time to review the bids. The bids provide a cost to operate the facility on an annual basis beginning July 1, 2010. For the first year of operation, the comparative bid results were: Montana Waste - $377,465; City of Great Falls - $301,063. The City’s actual cost to operate the facility in fiscal year 2009 was $286,727, and the projected expense to run the facility this fiscal year ending June 30th is $296,229.

Based on the bid amounts received, the City can and has been operating the facility much less expensively than the private sector.

Mr. Rearden reviewed several options including closing down the recycling and transfer programs, increase transfer fees or enact an assessment to pay for the service provided by the transfer and recycling operations.

Commissioner Burow moved, seconded by Commissioners Jolley and Jones, that the City Commission reject the bids for the Convenience Center Recycling and Garbage Transfer Services.

Mayor Winters asked if there was any discussion amongst the Commissioners.

Commissioner Jones commented that both of the bid amounts are more than what the Commission would like to spend on this operation. Although the City will continue its operation, he hoped they could find a way to make this pay instead of losing $67,000 per year in its operations. He would support Mr. Rearden’s ideas in regards to that matter in the future.

Commissioner Jolley referred to page 2 of the bid tab and inquired about the listed equipment. Mr. Rearden explained that the equipment and trucks listed is what the City currently has assigned to the City Recycling Center. If the operation were to be turned over, it would be turned over with that equipment. The cost of the equipment is outside of the annual cost to operate the facility.

Commissioner Burow commented that he appreciated the time Mr. Rearden put into looking at this option. He concurred with Commissioner Jones’ comments and added that too much money is being lost on some of these entities.

City Manager Doyon added that he would be interested to see if the County would have a conversation regarding partnering since County residents already extensively use the facility. With regard to the upcoming budget, he asked the Commission to think about recycling options, if the community is interested in maintaining that service. The sanitation fund, through its residential and commercial curbside pick-up, is picking up the slack on the recycling center which reduces the ability to replace capital items, equipment and the facility. Multiple handling of the recyclables presents a challenge as well as having a market for those recyclables. He discussed scenarios including not operating the Convenience Center but continuing with the sub-stations, partnering with the County in some way, or just sending it to the landfill. That will let the sanitation fund re-coop and then start a recycling program after more community input.

Commissioner Bronson concurred with Commissioner Jones. He suggested that the Commission move forward along the lines of what Mr. Doyon proposed and look at another series of options.

Mayor Winters asked if there were any inquiries from the public. Hearing none, Mayor Winters called for the vote.

Motion carried 5-0.

Public Works Director Jim Rearden reported that Ordinance 3050 amends Title 13 of the City Code and, specifically, the sanitary sewer codes. These amendments are being done to update the codes to comply with federal regulations. First reading of the ordinance came before the Commission on March 16, 2010. Subsequent to that reading, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was to publish Ordinance 3050 for a 30-day comment period. The EPA has not completed its public noticing. Staff is recommending that the Commission table second reading of the Ordinance until EPA completes its process. It will then be brought back to the City Commission for consideration.

Commissioner Bronson moved, seconded by Commissioners Jolley and Jones, that the City Commission table second reading of Ordinance 3050 pending notice requirement compliance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Mayor Winters asked if there was any discussion amongst the Commissioners or inquiries from the public. Hearing none, Mayor Winters called for the vote.

Planning and Community Development Director Mike Haynes reported that on March 23, 2010, the Planning Advisory Board, acting as the Zoning Commission, recommended approval of an amended plat with a zoning of PUD for property located at 21st Avenue South and 17th Street South.

The property is owned by NeighborWorks and the replat and zoning is to allow development of 4 two-family dwelling units with each unit on a separate lot. So, although having the appearance of four duplexes, there will actually be eight fee-simple residential units on eight lots.

Subsequent to the recommendation of approval by the Zoning Commission, the applicant determined that the size of the rear yards of the units would be less than desirable for the future property owners and asked planning staff to consider variances to either the front yard setback for the principal structure or the rear yard setback for the parking pads.

Staff maintained the minimum 20–foot front yard setback for the principal structure, but was willing to allow the parking pads to be five feet from the alley.

Mr. Haynes requested that the City Commission accept Ordinance 3052 on first reading and set the public hearing for June 15, 2010.

Commissioner Bronson moved, seconded by Commissioner Burow, that the City Commission accept Ordinance 3052 on first reading and set a public hearing for June 15, 2010.

Mayor Winters asked if there was any discussion amongst the Commissioners. No one responded.

Mayor Winters asked if there were any inquiries from the public.

Brett Doney, Great Falls Development Authority, residing at 3048 Delmar Drive, reported that he is also a board member of NeighborWorks Great Falls. He commended the Planning and Community Development Department for its flexibility in this regard.

Motion carried 5-0.

Mayor Winters opened the meeting to Petitions and Communications.

In response to the accusatory statements made about fraud perpetrated against the City, City Manager Gregory Doyon commented that, at any time the Commission thinks it should change consultants, hire a water rights attorney or somebody independent to review what has occurred, he would do that. The reason the water right consultant was asked to report to this Commission tonight at the work session was to try to eliminate some of the perceptions discussed by the previous speaker. There were decisions made before he was hired as City Manager. He made it clear to the Commission that additional water amendments would not be made without the Commission knowing what they were.

He reminded the Commission that a preliminary budget session is up-coming prior to his budget presentation to the Commission. He asked that the Commission think about animal shelters, pools, golf courses, fire trucks, etc. There are some substantive matters that need to be contemplated that he will need feedback from the Commission about prior to his presentation.

Commissioner Burow mentioned that he attended the “spay and neuter” clinic at the Fairgrounds. It was well organized and he expressed his appreciation for the volunteers making the annual clinic happen.

Commissioner Jones expressed to Mr. Doyon that he thinks he is doing a great job. He appreciated the consultant’s update regarding water rights at the work session. When another decision needs to be made regarding water rights, he is confident Mr. Doyon will bring that before the Commission.

Commissioner Bronson commented that he has noticed in the past, and tonight was a good example, it is easy to get up in front of the podium under the protections of the First Amendment and make statements which he thinks are libelous and slanderous. The water right issues will be discussed in further detail when the amendments are presented to the Commission for formal action.

Commissioner Jolley commented that she doesn’t believe Mr. Lewin was criticizing the present City Manager. She noted that some issues she previously asked questions about she didn’t get information on - the PPL settlement for instance. She hoped to get additional information in the future.

Mr. Doyon responded that he hoped the Commission understood that there was a sincere and genuine attempt to provide information to the Commission to make informed decisions.

Mayor Winters added that has been pleased with Mr. Doyon’s efforts to bring the Commission up to date.

There being no further business to come before the regular Commission meeting, Commissioner Bronson moved, seconded by Commissioner Jones, that the regular meeting of May 18, 2010, be adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Motion carried 5-0.

Minutes Approved: June 1, 2010