Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-03 321+ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONT ANA October 3, 1983 ******************************* The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, October 3, 1983, at 4:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Stiff, Commissioner I Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre, City Manager Evans, Assistant City Manager Barrick, City Attorney Crumbaker-Smith and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer by Commissioner Weaver. The minutes of the regular meeting of September 26, 1983 were approved as corrected. Action on the minutes of the regular meeting of June 20, 1983 was deferred for a period of one week. Mayor Stiff asked if any of the Commissioners desired to remove any of the items listed under Consent Items for discussion. Commissioner Vant Hull requested that acknowledging re- ceipt of the City Manager's proposal for the Capital Improvement Program be removed for dis- cussion. Commissioner Anderson requested that acknowledging receipt of the water study report be removed for discussion. Due to the length of the meeting, these items were placed back on the Consent Items. Award bid - S.1. D. No. 632 - sewer, water and paving, Shawnee I ndustrial Park This was the time and place set to award the bid on Special Improvement District No. 632, for the installation of the sewer, water and paving in Shawnee I ndustrial Park. City Manager Evans noted award of this bid had been deferred at the two previous meet- ings pending receipt of a recommendation from the consulting engineers and the Director of Public Service (Works). The City Manager then concurred in the recommendation submitted by I Morrison-Maierle, Inc., and reviewed by Director of Public Service (Works) Holmes, that the Commission award the bid to Big Sky Paving Company, Inc., Bozeman, Montana, for Schedule I in the bid amount of $22,377.88 and for Schedule" in the bid amount of $40,436.60, for a total amount of $62,814.48. City Manager Evans noted the bond proceeds may not be sufficient to cover all costs incurred, which would require completion of a Change Order deleting a portion of the work to be completed. He also stated award of the bid should be subject to closing of the bond sale, with no costs to be incurred prior to the closing of the bond sale. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the bid for Special Improvement District No. 632 be awarded to Big Sky Paving Company, Inc., Bozeman, Montana, in the bid amount of $22,377.88 for Schedule I and $40,436.60 for Schedule II, for a total bid of $62,814.48, with the possibility of a Change Order deleting a portion of the work if there are not sufficient bond proceeds to complete the work, subject to closing of the bond sale, and with the understanding that no costs will be incurred prior to closing of the bond sale. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Decision - Commission Resolution No. 2470 - Garbage assessment for the period ending June 30, 1984 - This was the time and place set for a decision on Commission Resolution No. 2470, entitled: I COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2470 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, LEVYING AND ASSESSING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF TAXES UPON ALL REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, COUNTY OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA, UNLESS PROVISIONALLY EXEMPTED, TO DEFRAY THE COST AND EXPENSE OF COLLECTING AND DISPOSING OF GARBAGE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 696 OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE. 10-03-83 325 City Manager Evans recommended that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 2470, establishing the garbage assessments for the period ending June 30, 1984. Commissioner Weaver noted the garbage collection assessment is partially based on the landfill fees. He stated that he is not satisfied the basis for the proposed landfill fee schedule is equitable and he feels the staff should be directed to prepare a new basis and a new landfill fee schedule. I The City Manager noted the Resolutions levying and assessing the assessments for Fiscal Year 1983-84 must be adopted within the next two weeks so that the tax notices can be mailed by October 25, as mandated by the State Statute. He then stated if the Commission chooses not to adopt the new garbage assessments, a new Resolution must be prepared, adopting last year's garbage assessments, as last year's Resolution was for one fiscal year only. Commissioner Weaver stated concern that the landfill fee structure adopted last year may not provide the necessary revenues for operation of the landfill, and the shortfall will be absorbed by the taxpayers through the General Fund. He noted the staff may not have the time, expertise, or sufficient objectivity to conduct a study on a basis for assessing landfill fees. Commissioner Vant Hull stated she feels the proposed landfill fee schedule is more un- equitable than the fee schedule adopted last year. Commissioner Mathre noted one of the questions is the fact that several different bases have been used in determining the proposed landfill fee schedule. She stated that question is based on testimony received from the commercial sector only. She then stated she has talked with Engineering Officer Neil Mann and is convinced that the staff used the same kind of cri- teria in establishing the landfill fees for commercial haulers as for the City trucks. The Commissioner also noted the landfill fee schedule adopted last year was based entirely on estimates; and the proposed landfill fee schedule is based on one year's data base. She al so stated the City Attorney has indicated the proposed landfill fee schedule is more defensible than 4 I the existing schedule. Commissioner Mathre then noted the garbage collection service has a minimum of a $13,000.00 deficit at the end of Fiscal Year 1982-83. She noted that adoption of last year's fee schedules will create a greater deficit in the garbage collection service and the landfill operation, and indicated she feels the new fee schedules should be adopted. Mayor Stiff stated he feels the proposed landfill fee schedule is an improvement over the current schedule, but does not feel it is good enough to adopt. The Mayor then indicated he would vote against the proposed fee schedules. Commissioner Anderson stated she agrees with Commissioner Mathre. She stated she feel s the data is defensible and feels the City will be faced with greater deficit problems if the Commission adopts the assessment schedules that were adopted last year. It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the Commission reject Commission Resolution No. 2470 and direct the staff to prepare a new Reso- lution setting the base rate at the same amount as used for last fiscal year. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Weaver and Mayor Stiff; those voting No being Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Mathre. Decision - Commission Resolution No. 2471 - Landfill fees for period beginning October 1, 1983 This was the time and place set for the decision on Commission Resolution No. 2471. entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2471 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, I MONTANA, ESTABLISHING A REVISED LANDFILL FEE SCHEDULE FOR USERS OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN LANDFILL. City Manager Evans recommended that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 2471, revising the landfill fee schedule for the period beginning October 1, 1983. The City . Manager noted that if this Resolution and accompanying landfill fee schedule are not adopted, the landfill fee schedule adopted last year will remain in effect. Mayor Stiff stated that, in remaining consistent with the previous action, he will vote against adoption of the revised landfill fee schedule. Commissioner Vant Hull and Commissioner Weaver indicated they concurred in the Mayor's statement. 10-03-83 32C It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 2471, revising the landfill fee schedule for the period beginning October 1, 1983. The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Mathre; those voting No being Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull and Mayor Stiff. Briefing and update on Felska-Solvie proposed convention center - Mr. Solvie I City Manager Evans stated Mr. Audie Solyie and Mr. Dan Felska were present to give a briefing and update on their proposed convention center. Mr. Solvie introduced himself and his associates to the Commission. Commissioner Anderson asked if the motel planned for the convention center will be a chain motel or privately constructed. She also asked if future expansion of the convention center would include expansion of the convention facilities to host a convention of more than 800 persons. Mr. Solvie stated the possibility of a franchise with a chain motel is being considered. He then stated that any proposed expansion at this time would be in the atrium area and the number of motel rooms. Commissioner Vant Hull asked what time schedule the developers are considering. Mr. Sol vie stated they cou Id be ready for construction in Apri I 1984. He stated the timing depends on the financing possibilities, such as use of UDAG funds. He then stated the construction will be an eighteen-month project. Mr. Solvie then explained the UDAG (Urban Development Action Grant) program. He stated the UDAG program is funded with federal monies through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He stated it is his understanding that the federal government has allo- cated $400 million for the program. The UDAG grant is made to the City; and the City then makes loans from that grant money. Mr. Solvie stated his primary reason for considering UDAG monies rather than lOR bonds is that Industrial Development Revenue bonds have a $10 million I ceiling, while the UDAG monies have a $20 million ceiling. He stated if that ceiling is ex- ceeded, the bonds become taxable. Mr. Solvie stated that Title I projects qualify for the UDAG funding. Commissioner Vant Hull asked who would prepare the grant application. Mr. Solvie stated the City must submit the application. He noted that an appl ication could be completed within a few days. Commissioner Weaver asked how critical the UDAG funding is to the proposal. Mr. Solvie stated the conditions on I DR bonds include the ceiling of $10 million, to which he had previously alluded. He stated that ceiling includes funding from all sources for a single project. He noted this ceiling covers a six-year period, three years prior to issuance of the I DR bonds and three years following issuance of the bonds. Mr. Solvie stated that the developers foresee possible expansion of the convention center within two years of completion. He stated that ceiling on the IDR bonds could either hamper expansion of the facility for at least one year, or the I DR bonds could become taxable and would thus lose much of their benefit. Mayor Stiff asked Mr. Solvie if had talked to anyone in the City about this proposal. City Manager Evans stated he had spoken with Mr. Solvie. He indicated that he would not allocate City resources to pursue UDAG funding until more information is received on the program. Mr. Sol vie stated he has spoken with Mr. Zelio, an employee of HUD in Denver who travels to Montana to explain the various HUD programs. He stated Mr. Zelio has indicated a willingness to come to Bozeman to explain the UDAG program to the City officials. I Commissioner Weaver asked if there are deadlines to be met or if time is critical for this proposal. Mr. Solvie stated that the City must receive UDAG designation, which can be done imme- diately because Bozeman is one of the cities listed as eligible for UDAG funds. He noted some items must be completed on the convention center proposal prior to submission to HUD for UDAG funding. Mr. Solvie stated he would like to meet the February 1984 application deadline for UDAG funding. 10-03-83 32I City Manager Evans stated the City should contact Mr. Zelio and request a presentation on the UDAG program. He stated this would provide information on whether an additional work- load wi II be placed on City employees. He stated the City would also then be able to analyze the matter and determine where it is headed if it pursues UDAG funding. Commissioner Weaver asked Mr. Solvie if he and his associates would be willing to pre- I pare the application for UDAG funding if the City does apply for eligibility. Mr. Sol vie stated he would accept that responsibility. Mr. Thor Jackola, consulting engineer for the project, showed the Commission the pre- liminary plans. He stated that Mr. Solvie has received approval for a lease of property for the convention center. The site is located on the east side of North Seventh Avenue, just north of Oak Street. Mr. Jackola stated they hope to receive approval for access from North Seventh Avenue, across from Baxter Lane, and from Oak Street to the convention center site. Mr. Jackola stated the proposed convention center would have a nice fifth-floor first-class restaurant. He noted with the amenities located around Bozeman, they feel this is a good site for the proposed facility. Mr. Jackola noted the proposed site is easily accessible from the interstate as well as from the airport. Commissioner Vant Hull asked if the proposed facility would affect the existing motels in the community. Mr. Jackola stated the convention center will provide facilities that should attract more people to the area. He noted that, although rooms are provided at the convention center, motels tend to cluster around the center. He stated there are several motels close to the site at this time. The Commission thanked Mr. Solvie and his associates for the presentation. Break - 4:55 to 5:00 p.m. Mayor Stiff declared a five-minute break at 4:55 p.m., to reconvene at 5:00 p.m., in I accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. provide handi- ommission City Manager Evans stated discussion on this request had been continued for a period of one week to allow the City Attorney an opportunity to review the matter and submit her findings. He noted the Commission has received copies of the City Attorney's memo and the Building Official's memo. The City Manager stated the City Attorney's memo indicates that the Commission does not have the authority to waive the requirement of the Uniform Building Code to provide handicapped access to a new or remodeled public building; however, the Commission does have the authority to recommend to the Building Official that he consider waiving the requirement and provide reasons for that recommendation. City Manager Evans then recommended the Commis- sioners consider a recommendation to be submitted to the Building Official if they so desire. City Attorney Crumbaker-Smith stated, as long as all other conditions of the Uniform Building Code are met, she would have no problem with waiving the requirement for a handi- capped access to the basement of the subject building. Mayor Stiff asked how this decision would affect the decision on the next request that comes before the Commission. The City Attorney stated the findings of the Commission and the reasons for the recom- mendation could establish a precedent if a future request involves a building in the exact same circumstances; but she does not feel a decision based on specific reasons will establish a I precedent. She further noted the problem is one involving construction, and the decision should be made by someone who has knowledge of construction and the potential problems. Commissioner Anderson stated concern that the proposed handicapped access ramp would be uncovered. She questioned whether that access would meet the Uniform Building Code's stated purpose, which is "to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures within this jurisdiction and certain equipment specifically regulated herein." 10-03~83 32t; Commissioner Vant Hull stated the subject building is unique, since it is more than one- hundred years old and is the oldest building along Main Street. Commissioner Weaver noted it appears that the requirement to provide handicapped access to a one-hundred-year-old building is impractical because of the costs involved and the limited benefit that would be received by providing handicapped access to a bar on Main Street when others are accessible in the same area. He stated that he feels strict application of the Uniform Building Code is impractical in this case. I Mayor Stiff noted he has had impaired mobility for over forty years. He stated the commu- nity has a larger percentage of handicapped persons than most communities because of Montana State University. He stated he feels the handicapped community should be allowed an opportunity to speak on this matter. The Mayor also indicated he has no problem with waiving the require- ment for a handicapped access to this business, but he does not feel the requirement should be waived for all locations. Mr. Bill Pepper, Attorney representing Bob Evans and Jim DiBerardinis, stated he has a copy of a letter from a top historical architect. He noted this letter reflects the fact that the property owners are in the process of having the subject building registered as a historical building. The applicants intend to retain as much of the exterior facade of the building as possible. Mr. Pepper also stated he feels an exterior ramp is impractical. Mr. Pepper then stated that designation as a historical building will essentially remove it from the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Mrs. Shirley Sedivy asked if the installation of a porch lift has been fully explored. She stated she has reviewed information on various types of lifts and feels one could be in- stalled in this structure. Mr. Bob Frazier, Wheelchairs, Crutches and People at Montana State University, stated 14,000 people were injured last year due to people carrying wheelchairs up and down stairs. Mr. Frazier stated there is too much liability involved in employees carrying wheelchairs up and down stairs. He stated he does not feel a porch lift will deface the building or harm the I historical value of the structure. Commissioner Weaver stated concern with having a handicapped person dependent upon a lift to get him/her out of the basement of an old building, in the event of power failure or possible natural disaster. Mrs. Sedivy stated concern with the possible setting of a precedent. She noted many of the buildings along Main Street are not accessible by the handicapped. Commissioner Mathre stated she feels the possible installation of a lift has not been sufficiently pursued. She further stated she feels the State would be willing to work with the applicant on the lift requirements for the building. Mr. Bill Pepper stated that common sense must be used in considering this issue. He stated it is not practical to install a handicapped access in this building. He noted the re- modeling is not extensive or expensive and to require outlay of a large amount of money to install a handicapped access seems impractical. Commissioner Anderson stated concurrence in Commissioner Mathre's statement. She indi- cated she does not feel all possibilities for installation of a lift have been pursued. She suggested that the Commission recommend that further study be completed prior to reaching a decision. Assistant City Manager Barrick stated the apparent feeling is that as long as the pro- posed business is a bar, the need for handicapped access is not great. He noted, however, if the bar were to be replaced by a retail store, the need for handicapped access would probably increase. He stated the decision must be on the basis of conducting a business in the basement I of a building. Mr. Jim Di Berardinis reiterated Mr. Pepper's statements about the building being placed on the histo"rical buildings register. He stated installation of a lift would destroy the historical value of the building. Mr. DiBerardinis then stated he has reviewed three different lift possi- bilities but the State has indicated it will not approve any lift over six feet in a commercial area. He stated that installation of an elevator would cost $100,000.00 but would not increase the value of the building by that amount. 10-03-83 329 Mr. DiBerardinis then stated the question of safety has been raised. He indicated it would be extremely dangerous for wheelchairs to travel down the paved alley to gain access to the establishment at night. He noted the alley crosses Bozeman Creek via a narrow bridge. He stated he feels the installation of a ramp, or any other handicapped access, is unreasonable and not practical. I It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull that the Commission recommend to the Building Official that the request for waiver of the handicapped access requirements for Mike's Place, to be located in the basement of the building at 238 East Main Street, be granted. The motion died for lack of a second. City Manager Evans stated if the structure were designated a historical bui Iding, the requirement for a handicapped access could be waived. He noted, however, that at this time the building is not listed as a historical building. The City Manager also noted the Building Official must make the ultimate decision. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the Commission recommend to the Building Official that, because of the unique, peculiar and distinct characteristics of the building in question, specifically (1) that sub-surface drainage problems make it impractical to construct a ramp, (2) that the cost of installing an elevator appears impractical in view of the value of the structure, (3) that the installation of a lift does not appear to have been fully reviewed and should be pursued further by the applicant, and (4) that the building has identifiable historical value, a waiver to the equal access provisions of the Uniform Building Code be granted for Mike's Place, to be located in the basement of the building at 238 East Main Street. The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Weaver and Commissioner Vant Hull; those voting No being Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre and Mayor Stiff. Presentation to the Commission from the Sweet Adelines (at 5:00) I The Sweet Adelines gave a brief presentation to the Commission, singing a parody on "lf They Could See Us Now, II and presented each of the Commissioners with two complementary tickets to the Bozeman Centennial Show, to be held on Friday and Saturday evenings. Recess - 5:55 p.m. Mayor Stiff declared a recess at 5:55 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings and completing the routine business items. Reconvene - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Stiff reconvened the Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conduct- ing the scheduled public hearings and completing the routine business items. Commissioner Anderson was absent for the public hearings portion of the meeting in compliance with Section 7-3-4322, M.C.A. This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Zone Map Change request- ed by Glen Hargrove, Dave Hargrove and Dave Johnson, c/o Joseph W. Sabol, and Roger Hougen, from R-l to R-MH and R-l to R-2-A, portions of the NW-k and NE! of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, MPM. The site is more commonly located on the south side of Patterson I Road between South Nineteenth Avenue and Fowler Road. City Manager Evans stated the Zoning Commission had opened and continued the public hearing for two months and requested that the Commission take the same action on this request. Mayor Stiff opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak on this Zone Map Change request. Mayor Stiff continued the public hearing for two months. 10-03-83 33U Public hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Kip and Barbara Kapinos for Frank J. Trunk and Son Partnership to allow a sign shop and residence In the Wi NWL Section 16, T 25, R5E, MPM (8494 Huffine Lane) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit requested by Kip and Barbara Kapinos for Frank J. Trunk and Son Partnership to allow a sign shop and residence in the Wi NWL Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, MPM. The site is more commonly known as being located at 8494 Huffine Lane. I Mayor Stiff opened the public hearing. Assistant Planner Mike Money presented the Staff Report. He stated the applicant has requested that the requirement to pave a portion of the parking lot be reconsidered. He stated the applicant has also requested that the wording of Condition No. 3 be revised to reflect the fact that the sign itself is to be 8 feet by 10 feet, for a total of 80 square feet. The Assistant Planner noted that the structure upon which the sign is to be placed is considerably larger than the 80 square feet and has been approved by the Zoning Commission. Kip and Barbara Kapinos, applicants, requested that the requirement for partial paving of the parking lot be waived. Mrs. Kapinos stated access to this parcel of property is from a gravel road, and they feel there is not the need for a paved parking lot in the county that there is within the city limits. Mr. Kapinos stated the sign would be located within the 40-foot corner setback and would be located about 30 feet off the road. Mr. Kapinos then showed the Commission a drawing of the proposed sign, which would be located on a wooden structure approximately 18 feet high and 12 feet wide. Mayor Stiff asked Assistant Planner Money to comment on the request for waiver of the paving requirement. The Assistant Planner stated the Zone Code requires paving of the parking lot. He stated the applicant can submit a request to the Board of Adjustment for a waiver of the paving requirement. No one was present to speak in opposition to the granting of the requested Conditional I Use Permit. Mrs. Barbara Kapinos requested that, since no protest was received and since they are renting the property and wish to cut their expenses as much as possible, the Commission waive the customary one-week interval prior to making a decision. Mayor Stiff closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the customary one-week interval be waived since no public protest was received and since the one- week waiting period could create a financial hardship for the applicant. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Mathre and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by Kip and Barbara Kapinos for Frank J. Trunk and Son Partnership to allow a sign shop and residence in the Wi NWJ;, Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, MPM, more commonly located at 8494 Huffine Lane, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a minimum of five (5) off-street parking stalls be paved along with the needed driving aisle. Said parking stalls may not be located closer than 35 feet from Farmers Canal and shall incorporate the needed wheel stops and landscape protection devices. 2. That the debris on site be cleaned up and that the applicant take the needed action to control the noxious weeds between the structure and U. S. Highway 191. I 3. That the sign itself be limited in size to not more than 80 square feet. 4. That the 35-foot setback along Farmers Canal be reclaimed by removing the gravel from the existing parking area and/or be replanted to allow vegetation to take over that area. 5. That the paving and drainage plans be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Office prior to final site plan approval. 10-03~83 331 6. That Phase II be completed within 36 months of the final site plan approval of Phase I. 7. That the trash enclosure be provided that will be readily accessible to the garbage trucks. 8. That the developer enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City of Bozema n . The structure may not be occupied until all required improve- I ments have been installed, and inspected and accepted by the City of Bozema n . If occupancy is to occur prior to the installation of the required improvements, the developer shall secure the Improvements Agreement with an acceptable method of security equal to one- and one-half (H) times the amount of the cost of the scheduled improvements. 9. That three (3) copies of the final site plan containing all the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the City Commission be sub- mitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six (6) months of the date of the City Commission approval and prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. One (1) signed copy shall be re- tained by the Building Division; one (1) signed copy shall be retained by the Planning Director; and one (1) signed copy shall be retained by the applicant. 10. All on-site improvements (i.e. paving, landscaping, etc.) shall be com- pleted within eighteen (18) months of approval of the Conditional Use Permit as shown on the approved final site plan. 11. The Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a period of only eighteen (18) months following approval of the use. Prior to the permanent renewal of the permit at the end of that period, the appl icant must satisfy all the conditions in the granting of the permit. An on-site inspection will be made and a report will be made to the City Commission for their action. If all required conditions have been satisfied, the permit will be permanently renewed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. I Publ ic hearin - Conditional Use Permit - David A. Osterman for Melvin and Lila Iceno Ie - a ow cons,tructJOn 0 1 mini-ware ouses Wit 0 Ice and caretaker s reSidence on racts 40 and 41, Northeast Annexation (1811 North Rouse Avenue) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit requested by David A. Osterman for Melvin and Li la Icenoggle to allow construction of 130 mini-warehouses with office and caretaker's residence on Tracts 40 and 41, Northeast Annexa- . tion. This site is more commonly located at 1811 North Rouse Avenue. Mayor Stiff opened the public hearing. Assistant Planner Mike Money presented the Staff Report. He noted the applicant has :;. requested a Conditional Use Permit because this site is located within a "T" district. The Assistant Planner stated the Zoning Commission reviewed the request and recommended con~ ditional approval. Mr. David Osterman was present to answer any questions. No one spoke in support of or in opposition to the granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Stiff closed the public hearing. A decision will be forthcoming in one week. Presentation - Brown I Caldwell study on impact fees and development fees City Manager Evans stated that representatives of Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers, were present to give a brief presentation on the final draft of their report on the "Feasibility of Implementing Annexation Fees and Utility Development Charges". I Mr. Bob Hunter, local representative, introduced Mr. Harris Zeitzew and Mr. Bob Murdo. He stated they would present the major portion of the report. Mr. Harris Zeitzew stated several assumptions were made initially, including (1) the annexation requests are voluntary, (2) neutral annexation policy, (3) compensatory fees, and (4) capital reserve funds be establ ished. Mr. Zeitzew stated that the City should conduct an economic viability test on each voluntary annexation to determine if the request should be approved. He noted this test is divided into two portions, (1) the initial capital costs and (2) the on-going annual costs. He 10-03-83 332 noted the initial capital costs include (1) new on-site facili,ties, (2) new local off-site facilities, and (3) existing regional facilities. Mr. Zeitzew then stated the City must choose which of three annexation policies it wishes to adopt (1) promotional, in which the fees are lower and encourage annexation; (2) restrictive, in which the fees are severe and discourage annexation; and (3) neutral, in which the fees pay for the costs involved in annexation. Mr. Zeitzew then reviewed the estimated costs for a single-fami Iy dwelling unit on a one- I quarter-acre lot. Those costs are as follows: Waste Water Development Charge $300.00 Water Development Charge 360.00 Sub- Total $660.00 70% of fees Water Rights Acquisition Fee 65.00 Annexation Impact Fee 95.00 Access Road Improvement Fee 125.00 30% of fees Total $945.00 He stated that if the $945.00 in costs are included in the mortgage payment, they will add $10.00 to the monthly payment. He noted if a person builds a home outside city limits, it will be located on a one-acre lot, with a well and septic tank. He then stated Mr. Bruce Bender's paper indicates the average cost for Waste Water Development Charges is $695.00, and for Water Development Charges is $875.00. Mr. Zeitzew then stated the legal ity of development charges and annexation fees must be determined. He also noted the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over the water development charges, water rights acquisition fees and waste water development charges. He stated Brown and Caldwell utilized the services of Montana attorneys who are experts in this field to complete a portion of the report. He then introduced Mr. Bob Murdo, Attorney from Helena. Mr. Murdo stated he prepared the legal analysis of the proposed fees and charges. He noted these fees are in two categories (1) utility development charges, such as hookup fees for water and sewer and (2) impact fees, or annexation fees. Mr. Murdo stated he found no Montana I laws or court decisions that indicate a City such as Bozeman can impose a utility development charge. He stated there have been other cases and an Attorney GeneraJls opinion that indicate hookup fees for water and sewer can be established. He stated the Public Service Commission statute authorizes various municipalities to charge fees for utilities as long as those fees are reasonable and just and are uniformly applied. He suggested the basis for the charges be the cost of the lIexcess capacityll of the utilities. Mr. Murdo stated he had spoken with Mr. Ron Woods, Assistant Administrator of the Utilities Division, municipal rate increases, of the Public Service Commission. He stated Mr. Woods suggested the City use a five-year average of all ~ income from hookup fees to derive a logical estimate of income. He noted that amount can then be considered as income when increasing utility fees, so the total income does not reflect an increase greater than the 12 percent ceiling mandated .by State law. Mr. Murdo then stated for general government powers and self-government powers cities, the utility development charges could be imposed, as long as they are legal and justifiable. Mr. Murdo stated the legality of impact fees is not as clear. He also noted the general government power cities operate under the IIDillon Rule, II which states that if the State Statute does not specifically provide for an action, it cannot be done. He stated the State Statute requires that a report from the City staff be submitted for each annexation request, addressing how the City intends to provide services to that area in the future. He stated the implication is that the City can charge fees for what it is required to do, which could include buying into the excess capacity of the City's services. Mr. Murdo stated this implication can be utilized in self-government power cities much more easily than in general government power cities. He I stated there is no prohibition against impact fees in the State Statute. Mr. Murdo stated he would recommend a test case to determine if what the City is attempting to do is valid in Court. Break - 8:05 to 8:15 p.m. Mayor Stiff declared a break at 8:05 p.m., to reconvene at 8:15 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. 10-03-83 -------- -------- 333 Continued presentation - Brownl Caldwell study on impact fees and development fees Mayor Stiff stated he feels it would be unfair for the City to annex properties without any provisions for those fees proposed In the report. Mr. Zeitzew stated the underlying rationale of the report is based on the free negotiation between a developer wanting to annex a parcel of property, and the City wanting to annex property I on equitable conditions. He also stated if the fees or charges pass the tests of equitability, they should pass tests of legality. Mr. Zeitzew also stated the proposed water and waste water development charges would be deposited in a capital reserve fund rather than the operating fund. He stated this would distinguish the fact the fee is to pay a portion of the excess capacity rather than the current utility costs the current customers are paying. He noted the "excess capacity" is determined by subtracting the original total cost of the utility from the current replacement cost of the utility. Mr. Zeitzew stated the figure, derived at in this manner seems the most equitable on which to base development fees. Mr. Bill Fairy, Brown and Caldwell, stated the basic question to be answered is what do existing users pay, and what should they be paying in annual charges. He noted users pay not only for debt service but for replacement of the existing system. He also noted imposition of a buy-in charge on new customers recognizes the fact that the system is available and that replacement costs are incurred from the time the facility is constructed. Mr. Fairy also indi- cated if the City operates the water and sewer as nonprofit utilities, the funds can recover current costs but should not try to recover depreciation expenses. He stressed the importance of considering the long-term impacts of adding customers to the water and sewer services and the future operational costs and replacement costs of the systems. Mayor Stiff noted the neutral annexation policy without penalty or bonus could become a disincentive to build in the City because of the charges involved, which will cause more con- struction to be completed in the county. He then indicated he feels the City and County should cooperate in establishing policies and various fees for new developments. I Commissioner Vant Hull stated several legal aspects must be addressed before the County could consider imposition of impact fees. She also noted this study has been completed as a general document for the community. However, a number of people have chosen to build outside city limits, and the imposition of utility development charges and impact fees could increase that number. She noted if those areas are not annexed, the City will not be increasing its property tax base or population base for various funding, such as Revenue Sharing monies and motor vehicle fees. The Commissioner indicated she feels those items should be considered as well as the effect of the actua I fees. Mr. Zeitzew stated the economic feasibility test considers the increased annual costs of City services and the increased income a new annexation or development would provide. He stated those two figures must be compared to determine if the proposed annexation or development would be beneficial to the general community. Mr. Bob Hunter stated that he has talked to the staff about the manner in which to set up the fiscal impact analysis for future development. He stated if the City follows the formulas listed in the manual, it will be able to control future development. Mr. Hunter also noted it is difficult to determine the implications of establishing the various fees without conducting tests on proposed developments and annexations. Mr. Fairy stated utility development charges would provide incentives and disincentives. He noted one of the disincentives would be leapfrog development. Mayor Stiff stated he has been concerned about the best implementation of the Master Plan. He stated if the City could define a way to determine the impact a development or annexa- I tion would have on roadways and the formulas in the report could be applied to properties out- side the city, the Master Plan could be easily implemented. Commissioner Vant Hull stated real estate agents have indicated the cost of lots within the city is high. She also noted there are more available lots in the county than in the city. Commissioner Weaver noted people do not choose to live in the county because of the costs, but because that is where they wish to live. Mr. Zeitzew stated in 1981 through a judgment advisory counsel, the EPA recommended that recipients of federal grants for construction of Waste Water Treatment Plants consider 10-03-83 , 33 It implementation of tap-on fees as a means of acquiring revenues to maintain and develop their systems. Commissioner Weaver asked if a non-self-government powers government can legally impose the proposed utility development charges and impact fees. Mr. Murdo stated there is no State Statute that specifically states that general powers governments can charge impact fees. I Mayor Stiff asked how many changes will be made between this preliminary draft and the final report. Mr. Zeitzew stated there wi II be no substantive changes. He stated the final report will contain a recommendation that capital reserve funds be established and a few minor revisions requested by the City staff. Mayor Stiff noted the City has attempted to impose access road improvement requirements in two instances; and without a specific formula for impact fees it is extremely difficult. NOTE: Commissioner Anderson returned to the Commission meeting at 9: 15 p. m. Mayor Stiff then asked if fees established by the City could be imposed within a desig- nated distance beyond the city limits. Mr. Fairy stated the City does not have the authority to impose fees beyond the city limits. Commissioner Vant Hull asked if the City-County Planning Board should review the Brown and Caldwell report to determine if it is compatible with the Master Plan. Mayor Stiff noted several implications to self-government powers have been noted. He suggested the Commission may wish to wait until at least November to take action on this report. Commissioner Vant Hull asked when the final report will be available. Mr. Zeitzew stated the report should be available within the next week. The Commission thanked the representatives of Brown and Caldwell for presenting the report and answering questions. Break - 9:30 to 9:40 p.m. I Mayor Stiff declared a break at 9:30 p.m., to reconvene at 9:40 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Recommendation on location for life-size bronze sculpture of John Bozeman City Manager Evans presented to the Commission a memo from Donna Shanahan indicating that she, Pat Noteboom and Park Superintendent John McNeil met concerning the proposed location for the life-size bronze sculpture of John Bozeman. He noted that following consideration of several potential locations, they concurred the best location would be in the center of Cooper Park, with all paths leading to the tall statute. Commissioner Mathre stated she has talked to Mrs. Shanahan about this matter. She noted Cooper Park is one of the oldest parks in Bozeman, and has a good setting for the sculpture. She also noted that landscaping around the sculpture could complete a beautiful central focus poi nt in the park. The Commissioner stated the committee felt the Cooper Park location would be more appropriate than any location in Lindley Park. Mr. Charlie Schlegel, representing Steve Schlegel, stated they would support the Cooper Park location. He then stated potential investors in the sculpture have been awaiting final Commission approval of a location. He noted the preliminary discussions were centered around a Lindley Park location and asked if the Commission would consider an alternative location of Lindley Park, possibly the northeast corner, if the investors request. Commissioner Mathre stated she feels the Cooper Park setting would be better for the I statute. She also noted it would be more available to the public than in the northeast corner of Lindley Park, where people would be simply driving by. Mr. Schlegel stated he and Steve had requested the Lindley Park site, since it is a high point and overlooks the City. He then indicated they anticipate having most of the investors committed in two to four weeks. He noted Steve has been working on the frame for the sculpture. Commissioner Mathre suggested the Commission accept the committee's recommendation; and if any problems arise, the applicant may come back to the Commission for reconsideration. 10-03-83 335 It was moved by Commissioner Mathre, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the Commission approve placement of a life-size bronze sculpture of John Bozeman in the center of Cooper Park, where all paths intersect. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. I Request for sign variance - Biff and Ditts Ice Cream Parlor, 229 East Main Street City Manager Evans presented to the Commission a request for a sign variance, sub- mitted by Biff and Ditts Ice Cream Parlor, 229 East Main Street. Assistant City Manager Barrick stated the Building Official has reviewed the request, which is to place the sign 9 feet 10 inches above the sidewalk rather than the required 13 feet; and has indicated he has no objection to the request. The Assistant City Manager then recommended approval of the request. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the Commission approve the request for a sign variance submitted by Biff and Ditts Ice Cream Parlor, 229 East Main Street. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commis- sioner Mathre and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. A I ication for Kennel License - James D. and Linda Gre or , 1704 West Babcock - throu h December 31, 1983 City Manager Evans presented to the Commission, an appl ication for a Kennel License, along with the required fee, submitted by James D. and Linda Gregory, 1704 West Babcock Street, for the period through December 31, 1983. The City Manager stated the Animal Control Officer has inspected the premises and the vaccination records of the dogs and recommends approval of the application. He then concurred in that recommendation. It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the I Commission approve the application for a Kennel License submitted by James D. and Linda Gregory, 1704 West Babcock Street, for the period ending December 31, 1983. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Ordinance No. 1143 - Zone Code Amendment - allow adult book stores and adult motion picture theatres as a Conditional Use Permit in the M-l and M-2 Districts City Manager Evans presented Ordinance No. 1143, as prepared by the City Attorney, entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 1143 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADDING SECTION 18.04.025 PROVIDING FOR THE DEFINITION OF AN ADUL T BUSINESS AND AMENDING SECTION 18.52.140 TO ADD ADULT BUSINESSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE M-l AND M-2 DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. City Manager Evans stated the Commission had provisionally adopted this Ordinance on September 19, 1983 and recommended that the Commission finally adopt Ordinance No. 1143 at this time. It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the Commission finally adopt Ordinance No. 1143, to allow adult book stores and adult motion I picture theatres as a conditional use in the M-l and M-2 Districts. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Ordinance No. 1144 - Zone Code Amendment - allow mobi Ie home as a permitted use in the R-S, and -3 oning Istrlcts and as a onditional Use in the AS Zoning istrict City Manager Evans presented Ordinance No. 1144, as prepared by the City Attorney, entitled: 10-03-83 33G ORDINANCE NO. 1144 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING SECTIONS 18.04.190, 18.04.370, 18.12.020, 18.18.020, 18.20.020, 18.52.140 AND ADDING SECTION 18.50.220, OF TITLE 18 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE; PRO- VIDING FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HOMES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE AS, AGRICULTURAL SUBURBAN, ZONING DISTRICT, AND AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE R-S, RESIDENTIAL--SUBURBAN COUNTRY ESTATES; R-2-A, RESIDENTIAL--SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY; AND R-3, I RESIDENTIAL--MEDIUM DENSITY, ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. City Manager Evans stated the Commission had approved the Zone Code Amendment on August 29, 1983, and the staff has prepared an Ordinance. The City Manager then recom- mended that the Commission provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 1144 and that it be brought back in two weeks for final adoption. It was moved by Commissioner Mathre, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the Commis- sion provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 1144, to allow mobile homes as a conditional use in the AS Zoning District and as a permitted use in the R-S, R-2-A and R-3 Zoning Districts, and that it be brought back in two weeks for final adoption. The motion carried by the following A ye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Commission Resolution No. 2483 - establishing a Board of Appeals City Manager Evans presented Commission Resolution No. 2483, as prepared by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2483 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOARD OF APPEALS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION AND TO PROVIDE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CODES ADOPTED BY I THE CITY OF BOZEMAN. City Manager Evans recommended that the Commission adopt Commission Resolution No. 2483. Assistant City Manager Barrick stated the formation of a Board of Appeals is required in the Uniform Building Code, which the Commission has previously adopted. It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the Commission adopt Commission Resolution No. 2483, providing for establishment of a Board of Appeals. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Commission Resolution No. 2484 - amending Commission Resolution No. 2441, providing for an escrow account on -Sl D's in limited ownership City Manager Evans presented Commission Resolution No. 2484, as prepared by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2484 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2441, SECTION 2-J. City Manager Evans stated this Resolution amends Section 2-J of Commission Resolution No. 2441, which provides for an escrow account on SI D's in limited ownership, to accurately reflect the intent of the section. I City Attorney Crumbaker-Smith stated Commission Resolution No. 2484 provides that the person or group of persons holding property in limited ownership within a Special Improvement District must provide an escrow account for that portion which he/she holds only, and not for the enti re district. She noted Commission Resolution No. 2441 is unclear, and this Resolution simply defines that provision more clearly. It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the Commission adopt Commission Resolution No. 2484, amending Commission Resolution No. 2441, 10-03-83 331 providing for an escrow account on SID's in limited ownership. The motion carried by the fol low- ing Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Commission Resolution No. 2485 - authorizin transfer from SID Revolving Fund to SID No. 615 as nee ed I City Manager Evans presented Commission Resolution No. 2485, as prepared by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2485 A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS, SETTING OUT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION UNDERTAKES AND AGREES TO ISSUE ORDERS ANNUALL Y AUTHORI ZING LOANS OR ADVANCES FROM THE REVOL VI NG AC- COUNT TO THE EXTENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR SUCH REVOLVING FUND BY MAKING TAX LEVY AND LOANS AS THE COMMISSION DETERMINES NECESSARY. City Manager Evans stated adoption of this type of Resolution is required by the bond covenants for SID bonds. He then recommended that the Commission adopt Commission Resolu- tion No. 2485. It was moved by Commissioner Mathre, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the Commis- sion adopt Commission Resolution No. 2485, authorizing transfer of monies from the 51 D Revolving Fund to SI D No. 615 as needed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Continued discussion - ublic education pro ram on self- overnment powers City Manager Evans stated the Commission has requested this item be placed on the agenda for further discussion. I Commissioner Weaver stated he has talked with various members of the City staff and asked for specific examples of the limitations of general government powers, how the staff is affected by those limitations, and how the efficiency of the City would be improved through adoption of self-government powers. He stated Director of Finance Swan indicated several items in the sale of bonds and financial management that are specifically limited under general government powers but that can be accomplished under self-government powers. He noted those items should be brought to the attention of the taxpayers. The Commissioner stated if the City were to gain self-government powers, monies could be trimmed from the City budget. He also noted other areas of increase efficiency would be realized, but the monetary gain would be difficult to determine. He also noted the City administration is aware of the constraints of the Dillon Rule placed on general government powers, which would be eliminated if sel:-government dopted Commissioner Weaver then indicated he will prepare a working paper for powers were a . himself and possibly a non-advocacy printed sheet. Mayor Stiff noted he has received inquiries from various groups concerning the educa- tional program on self-government powers. .. . Commissioner Weaver stated he has talked to the Motel Owners Association, which per- ceives a connection between self-government powers and the hotel/motel tax. The Commissioner stated the meeting was used as a time for sharing information and views. He then stated ,the question of self-government powers raises the issue of whether the State g~vernment provides more checks and opportunities for rejection of taxation than would be provided by the local government. I Commissioner Vant Hull gave a brief report on the League of Women Voters meeting. She tated Commissioner Mathre made a presentation supporting self-government powers, and Doris ~ard made a presentation opposing self-government powers. She stated that, following the presentations, the board of the League voted to not support the proposal, as it had in 1976, because of the lack of time to adequately study the issue. She also stated the League has indicated it will provide an opportunity to address the pros and cons of self-government powers at the candidates meeting. Commissioner Vant Hull also suggested that the Commissioners prepare an informational statement on self-government powers which can be limited to a single sheet of paper. She 10-03-83 338 noted that those papers could be placed in various public places to help disseminate the information to as many people as possible. The Commission requested this item be placed on next week's agenda for further dis- cussion. Selection of Delegate and Alternate Delegate to attend N LC Congress of Cities - November 26-30, I 1983 - New Orleans, Louisiana City Manager Evans stated the Commission must consider selection a delegate and an alternate delegate to attend the National League of Cities Congress of Cities to be held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on November 26-30, 1983. Commissioner Weaver stated he feels if this were a regional meeting, it might be more beneficial than a national meeting. He then indicated if the Commission feels someone should attend, he would consider going. City Manager Evans noted that Bozeman is one of three or four cities in Montana which is a direct member of the National League of Cities. He stated membership may incur the responsibility to participate in the meetings. The City Manager also noted this is an oppor- tunity to learn and to bring items back which may help the City. Mayor Stiff stated he also feels the City should be represented at the NLC Congress of Cities. No action on selection of a delegate or alternate delegate was taken at this time. Letter to President re Revenue Sharing City Manager Evans stated the House of Representatives passed a Revenue Sharing bill at one level, and the Senate passed a bill at another level. He also noted it has been indicated that if a bill containing an increase in the Revenue Sharing funding is approved by the House and the Senate, the President may veto that bill. The City Manager then stated Cities have been requested to send a letter to the President requesting support for the re-enactment of I Federal Revenue Sharing funding. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the Commission authorize and direct the Mayor to send a letter to President Reagan supporting the re-enactment of the Federal Revenue Sharing program. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. arade - Bozeman Senior Hi h School Morrison-Maierle 632 Fish, back for , October 11, ay observed It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the I Commission approve the above-listed items and authorize and direct the appropriate persons to complete the necessary actions. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. 10-03-83 338 Adjournment - 10:35 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye' being Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre and Mayor Stiff; I those voting No, none. ALFRED M. ST I FF, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk of the Commission I I 10-03-83