Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-03 ?~., '..- :..,~. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA February 3, 1982 ************************* The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, February 3, 1982 at 1 :15 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 Planalp and the Clerk. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer by Commissioner Mathre. The minutes of the regular meeting of January 13, 1982 were approved as corrected; and the minutes of the regular meeting of January 27, 1982 were approved as corrected. None of the Commissioners requested that any of the items listed under Consent Items be removed for discussion. Downtown Development Association - Update on Urban Renewal Plan Mayor Stiff noted that this matter was not advertised as a public hearing, but is rather I isted as an update from the Downtown Development Association. He asked the City Commission if they wished to open the matter to discussion, since so many people were present. City Attorney Planalp noted that a matter of record is different from being heard. He stated that the City Commission can consider the update presented by the Downtown Develop- I ment Association and the responses by the opponents to the Plan. The comments heard can be considered in the deliberations of the Commission on this matter. Following a brief discussion, the City Commission decided to open this meeting to an informal discussion of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Tim Fitzgerald, representing the Downtown Development Association, presented a brief update on the activities since the publ ic hearing held on Oecember 22, 1981. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that two meetings have been held with members of the opposition, the first one being mostly residential persons and the second one being mostly businessmen in the downtown area. He stated that a compromise cannot be reached by these parties. Mr. Fitzgerald then noted that the City Commission may hold a public forum to develop a con- sensus on the Plan. Mr. Fitzgerald then proposed the following schedule to be followed under the public forum format: 1. At the meeting of February 10, the Commission would hold a discussion on the boundaries of the District. Suggestions for the boundaries would be presented by the Downtown Development Association; and then others present could make suggestions also. 2. On February 17, after one week's deliberation, the City Commission would make a I decision on the boundaries. Also, the Oowntown Development Association could submit its proposed amendments to the wording of the text in the proposed Plan, and a discussion could be held on these proposed amendments and those submitted by the other parties involved. 3. On February 22, a decision would be made on the proposed amendments. At that time, a determination should be made on whether another public hearing is nec- essary. If determined necessary, a time and place should be set so that the 281 necessary legal advertising could be undertaken. If no hearing is determined necessary, a date should be set for the final decision on the proposed Urban Renewal Plan. City Attorney Planalp stated that, if the boundaries are substantially changed, addi- tional public hearings wi II be required. Mr. Joe Sabol, Attorney at Law, representing a number of the individuals opposed to I the proposed Urban Renewal Plan, stated that his remarks would remain basic to the Urban Renewal Plan. He noted that he would not speak on the tax increment financing or eminent domain. Mr. Sabol first noted the differences between District, Plan, Area and Project. He stated that the Plan is simply a plan approved by the local governing body that can be modi- fied from time to time. The Area is one that is determined to be blighted and appropriate for urban renewal. The Project is anyone or many undertakings in a district. District is the same as the Area. Mr. Sabol stated that, after being asked to represent the people opposed to this pro- posed Urban Renewal Plan, he read the Montana Codes Annotated; obtained a copy of the Urban Renewal Plan and read it twice; and drove through the proposed District, looking at the various buildings and asking two questions: (1) does the presently existing district meet the requirements of the Statutes; and (2) does the presently proposed Plan meet the require- ments of the Statutes. He does not feel that either question can be answered in an affirmative manner. Mr. Sabol then quoted Section 7-15-4206 (2), M. C. A., which defines IIblighted area" I and lists fifteen criteria which draw the guidelines for determining if an area is blighted. (2) IIBlighted areall shall mean an area which is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, and crime; substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the city or its environs; retards the provision of housing accommodations; or constitutes an economic or social liability and/or is detrimental or constitutes a menace to the public health, safety, welfare, and morals in its present condition and use, by reason of: (a) the substantial physical dilapidation; deterioration; defective con- struction, material, and arrangement; and/or age obsolescence of building or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential; (b) inadequate provision for ventilation, light, proper sanitary facilities, or.' open spaces as determined by competent appraisers on the basis of an examination of the building standards of the municipality; (c) inappropriate or mixed uses of land or buildings; (d) high density of population and overcrowding; (e) defective or inadequate street layout; (f) faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; (g) excessive land coverage; (h) unsanitary or unsafe conditions; ( i) deterioration of site; I (j) diversity of ownership; (k) tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; ( I ) defective or unusual conditions of title; (m) improper subdivision or obsolete platting; ') ~ c", " '~5' /.. (n) the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes; or (0) any combination of such factors. Mr. Sabol stated that the proposed area is not one which is blighted by statutory con- notations. Mr. Sabol then questioned who had applied the guidelines to the area under considera- I tion. He noted that Page 23 of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan answers this question. The Plan notes that part of the information used was received from the Planning Department, located in the City Hall. In fact, this information was obtained by two young female interns working during the summer months for the Planning Department; and who surveyed the entire city in two months. In turn, two more young female interns took the information for those bui Idings located within the proposed Oistrict and compi led it for the Plan. A statement which sounds like the figures were obtained by professional means actually refers to four young lady interns, who gathered this information on a sight only basis. Mr. Sabol noted that there is a discrepancy between the sheets which were completed by the interns and the figures which appear in the proposed Plan. He stated that the local Building Inspector reviewed approximately thirty of those structures within the District, and graded them with the ABC method. None of them received a grading equivalent to substandard. The form used in this grading did not require checking for structural defects, however. Mr. Sabol noted that, if the Area is determined to be blighted, the next process be- gins. A Plan must be prepared, which conforms to the Master Plan. The proposed Plan does conform to the City's 1972 Master Plan. The Plan should also show proposed land acquisition, I demolition and removal of structures as may be proposed. The proposed Plan does not include these items. The proposed Plan is also remiss in meeting the requirements listed in the Montana Codes Annotated which require a specific plan for the Area, rather than an open plan. Mr. Sabol noted that the Planning Board is required to review and give a report on the proposed Plan within sixty days. He noted that the Planning Board as a total reviewed only part of the Plan and stated that it conformed with the Master Plan. Review of the re- mainder of the Plan was assigned to the Planning Director and the Chairman of the City- County Planning Board. Mr. Sabol then covered the steps required by the Montana Codes Annotated for the adoption of the Plan, including the ordinances and resolutions which must be adopted by the City Commission. Following the publ ic hearing, the governing body may adopt an ordinance approving the Urban Renewal Plan after finding (1) that a plan exists for making available adequate housing for those displaced by the Project (which the proposed Plan does not); and (2) that the Plan conforms with the Comprehensive Plan (which the proposed Plan does). Before the creation of the District, the City Commission must adopt a resolution stating that I the Area is blighted, by Statutory standards. Another resolution must be adopted stating that the Area is appropriate for urban renewal because of the blighted conditions. Also, by resolution, the City Commission must state that an Urban Renewal Plan is in the public interest of the community as a whole for public health, safety and moral reasons. The City 283 Commission must then find that the Plan meets the statutory requirements and that the Project meets the statutory requirements and adopt two ordinances. Mr. Sabol presented to the Commission a petition containing 530 signatures, represent- ing 476 properties, in opposition to the creation of the Urban Renewal District and adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan. He stated that not all of the signatures were from within the I proposed District, but all are residents of or near Bozeman. A significant number of the signatures do represent ownership in the downtown area. Mr. Tom Rolfe, presented a map showing the boundaries of the proposed District, those areas which are not taxed, and those properties within the District which opposed the Plan. Mr. Rolfe noted that a large portion of the Oistrict pays no taxes. He further noted that, conservatively, fifty percent of those not listed on the map have not been contacted yet. Mr. Dan McGuire, 307 East Olive, asked two questions on what he considered problem a rea s . He asked about the parking problems and the poor tax base. Mr. Joe Sabol, Attorney, stated that the Statute speaks to the tax base and special assessments, as noted in Section 7-15-4206(2)(k), M.C.A. He noted that the parking question is not specifically addressed, but it is a consideration because of steady growth and streets. He stated that this is one condition that could be used. Mr. Cecil Badgley, 112 West Lamme, noted that there are a number of items in the Plan of which people are afraid. If the City Commission approved the Urban Renewal Plan, it I should cover only the tax increment financing and nothing else; no S I D's, no condemnation, no additional power to the Downtown Development Association, no eminent domain and no traffic problem solving. Mr. Ian Elliot, an employee of Telecommunications, Inc., spoke as an individual. He stated that he lived in Anaconda when the Urban Renewal Plan was implemented. H is business property was condemned so that a new enclosed mall could be built. He stated that the old bui Iding is boarded up and still standing, along with several other bui Idings in that area. He noted concern about the same sort of problems in Bozeman. Mr. Steve Unger, Attorney, stated that he has served as counsel to redevelopment authorities in Kansas City and St. Louis. He noted that there is also a phi losophical question of blight. Mr. Unger stated that the cities themselves have a variety of means to control the public health, safety and welfare. An Urban Renewal Plan must satisfy the conditions as set forth in the State Statute, and he feels that Mr. Sabol has shown that there is no way that a Court would determine that these conditions are satisfied in Bozeman. He noted that the City Commission has the discretion to approve the proposed Plan, and the Court can be called upon to review the matter if deemed necessary. Mr. Unger feels that all schedules and I rushing should give way to an analysis of the problem and competent review of the properties. Mr. Robert A. Taylor, downtown businessman, stated that all he is seeing is delay, delay, delay. He also noted that the map presented by Mr. Rolfe graphically shows opposi- tion to the proposed Plan. He stated that the Downtown Development Association is devoting 2Hl~ its time and energy to pushing something they believe in, which is admirable. However, there is a lot of opposition; and the Plan should be voted down. Mr. Taylor feels that an ordinance which would sidestep some of the various requirements of the zoning and building regulations could do the same thing as the Plan and wouldn't cost everybody a bunch of money. Mayor Stiff noted that the City has revenue problems and will have more in the I future. He noted that this is a revenue source which, if done properly, should not impact others in the community whi Ie giving incentives to bui Id the tax base and create a substantial amount of revenue. He further noted that there are ways to control eminent domain. Mr. Taylor stated that this Plan borders on the decision for the downtown parking. That decision was for the good of the community; whi Ie this one is strictly for the good of the downtown area, not the community. Mr. Taylor stated that if the Plan works, it is beautiful; but he doesn't feel that it will work. He sees it as simply adding another layer of government. Commissioner Weaver noted that the decision on this matter is critical and is made in the absence of certainty because no one knows what the next ten years wi II be like. Ms. Terry Sullivan, owner of the Junque Shop, stated she feels that she provides a service to the community at a low cost. She noted that her business is located in an old building, which may be deemed blighted in the Urban Renewal Plan. She feels it would be better to make low-interest money avai lable to improve the buldings. She also would like to know which buildings are considered in need of repair prior to the adoption of the Plan. I Mr. AI Nixon, North Black, asked Commissioner Weaver if he thinks the Urban Renewal Plan is a plausible way to prevent bl ight. Commissioner Weaver stated that, based on what he knows at the present time, he feels that tax increment financing is a way to help prevent blight. He noted that the tax increment financing is the most attractive part of the plan at this time. Mr. Tony Stamm, 122 North Church, stated that he is still in extreme opposition to the Plan. He quoted Mr. Will Rogers' statement, "lf you find you are having a real hard time with blight, you ain't got any. II He noted that the real issue is that a few businessmen on Main Street are afraid of the creative people on West Main. Mr. Tom Rolfe asked each member of the Commission, if the majority of the people owning property within the area are opposed to the Plan, would you vote for the Plan if you feel that the Plan is good, or would you consider the desires of the people? Each Commissioner in tu rn gave a phi losophical answer. City Manager Evans stated that, after listening to the discussion, he would like to present his recommendation. He stated that the Commission should act on the question of whether or not there is bl ight. The Oowntown Development Association should submit a I proposal, noting where blight exists in the downtown area; and the opposition should have an opportunity to be heard. He noted that to schedule other activities until blight is determined is perhaps going through steps that might be unnecessary in the end. 285 The City Manager further noted that he is not in favor of allocating any of the City's revenues. He noted that the City has a limited number of employees and is on a stringent budget. The revision of the Master Plan is underway, along with many other activities. The City Manager further noted opposition to allocating any City resources until money is being received from the implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan. I City Manager Evans stated that the schedule proposed by the Downtown Development Association should be set aside. He stated that the plan must be broken down and taken step by step. First, the question of blight must be dealt with. City Attorney Planalp noted that the proposals should be submitted to the City Commission for discussion. He noted that to make the proposals and then make the decisions -,- could be uncomfortable for the City Commission. He further noted that the boundaries should be set prior to determining what is blighted. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the Commission instruct the Downtown Development Asociation to determine the blighted areas, according to State Statute definitions, within the proposed boundaries of the Urban Renewal District, or within other such boundaries as the Oowntown Development Association may determine, and that the matter be presented and discussed at a future Commission meeting. 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. I Mr. Gary Sisson, representative of the Downtown Development Association, noted that the boundaries of the District should be set prior to the determination of blight within the project area. Commissioner Weaver noted that the motion combines these two activities into one meeting. Following a brief discussion between the Commission and the representative from the Downtown Development Association, the date of March 1, 1982, was set, and this item wi II be listed on the agenda and advertised as a public hearing. Decision - B-3 Zone Code Amendment - Zoning Commission - Listed Permitted and Conditional Use This was the time and place for a decision on the proposed Zone Code Amendment to Section 18.48.020 and 18.72.150 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. These amendments would add certain permitted uses in the B-3 Zone and would delete certain other permitted uses in the B-3 Zone. Also, the list of conditional uses would be changed for the B-Zone. City Manager Evans concurred in the recommendation of the Zoning Commission that the requested Zone Code Amendment be approved. I It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the Commission approve the requested Zone Code Amendment to revise the listed permitted and conditional uses in the B-3 Zone, and the Staff be instructed to prepare an ordinance to be presented to the Commission for adoption. 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. ') '1 r. ","'" \ol ',,1'- Decision - B-2 Zone Code Amendment - Zoning Commission - Mini-Warehouses as Conditional Use This was the time and place set for a decision on the proposed Zone Code Amendment to Section 18.45 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The proposed Zone Code Amendment would amend Section 18.72. 150, which is referred to in Section 18.45, to allow Mini-Warehouses as permitted conditional use in the B-2, Community Highway Business, District. I City Manager Evans concurred in the recommendation of the Zoning Commission that this requested Zone Code Amendment be denied. It was moved by Commissioner Mathre, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the Commission deny the requested Zone Code Amendment to allow mini-warehouses as a conditional use in the B-2 Zone. 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. Public hearinq - Conditional Use Permit - Lowell Springer for Oon Nell - corner of Koch and Willson (next to Artemus Apartments) lto be continued to March 1, 1982) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit on behalf of Lowell Springer for Oon Nell. The project site is located on Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Block 6 of Alderson1s Addition, and is more commonly located on the northeast corner of Willson and Koch, just south of the Artemus Apartments. City Manager Evans stated that the Zoning Commission continued this public hearing until its next meeting and recommended that the City Commission continue this public hearing I until March 1,1982. Mayor Stiff opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the request. Mayor Stiff continued the public hearing until March 1, 1982. Publ ic hearing - Zone Map Chanqe - R-3 to B-3 - Lowell Springer - Lots 2-4, Guy.s First Addition (northeast corner of Olive and Bozeman) lto be continued to March 1, 1982) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Zone Map Change on behalf of Lowell Springer. The land in question is located on the northeast corner of Olive and Bozeman, and includes Lot 3 and portions of Lots 2 and 4 of Guy's First Addition. City Manager Evans stated that the Zoning Commission had continued this public hear- ing until its next meeting and requested that the City Commission open the public hearing and continue it unti I March 1, 1982. Mayor Stiff opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the request. Mayor Stiff continued the publ ic hearing until March 1, 1982. Publ ic hearing - Zone Map Change - R-2 to R-O - Zoning Commission - I solated parcel I between Interstate 90 and Frontage Road This was the time and place set for a public hearing on a Zone Map Change on behalf of the Zoning Commission. The requested Zone Map Change is from R-2 to R-O. The site is located between Frontage Road and Interstate 90, about one quarter of a mi Ie east of the 287 interchange on the east side of the City. It is known as a portion of Tract B of C.O.S. 558, located in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, M.P.M., Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The site comprises about two acres. It is an isolated area of R-2 zoning surrounded on all sides by land zoned R-O and M-1. This parcel is owned by Mr. Neil I Ganser and contains a residence. The Zoning Commission suggested the rezoning because the isolated parcel was left, and Mr. Ganser has indicated he does not object to the change of zoning. Mayor Stiff opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Money, Assistant Planner, presented the Staff Report. He noted that this requested Zone Map Change is the result of a Zone Map Change approved in November 1981 which changed the zoning from R-2 to R-O on the area surrounding this parcel of land. This original Zone Map Change caused the parcel in question today to become an isolated parcel with a different designation from that of the area surrounding it. To change the zoning on this parcel of land would bring it into conformance with the rest of the area surrounding it. No one was present to speak in support of or in opposition to this requested Zone Map Change. Mayor Stiff closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the Commission waive the one-week interval before the decision because no protests have been I received. 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. It was then moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the Commission approve the request on behalf of the Zoning Commission for a Zone Map Change from R-2 to R-O on an isolated parcel of land located between Interstate 90 and Frontage Road, about one-quarter of a mile east of the interchange on the east side of the City, known as a portion of the northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, M.P.M. 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. Public hearing - Commission Resolution No. 2388 - Intention to vacate South Seventeenth and South Eighteenth Avenues - to be corrected by Certificate of Survey This was the time and place set for the public hearing on Commission Resolution No. 2388, declaring the intention to vacate South Seventeenth and South Eighteenth Avenues, I south of Olive Street, to be corrected by Certificate of Survey, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2388 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF SAID COMMISSION TO VACATE PORTIONS OF SEVENTEENTH AVENUE AND EIGHTEENTH AVENUE SOUTH OF OLIVE STREET IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. Mayor Stiff opened the publ ic hearing. ") I;:; (' " \..i'..' City Engineer Van1t Hul stated that the Certificates of Survey which were recorded were not drawn from the same set of plans as the streets were constructed from. As a result, the cul-de-sacs for both streets are shorter than those shown on the Certificates of Survey. The City Attorney has recommended that these streets be vacated, and that new Certificates of Survey be recorded which reflect the actual construction of these two streets. Mr. Ron Allen was present, but did not speak. I No one was present to speak in opposition to the intention to vacate South Seventeenth and South Eighteenth Avenues, south of 01 ive Street. Mayor Stiff closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the Commission waive the customary one-week interval before the decision because no one was present to speak in opposition to Commission Resolution No. 2388. 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. It was then moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 2388, declaring the intention to vacate South Seventeenth and South Eighteenth Avenues, south of Olive Street, and instruct the City Staff to prepare an ordinance to be presented at next week's meeting for action, vacating said portions of South Seventeenth and South Eighteenth Avenues. The motion car- ried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver and Mayor Stiff; those I voting No, none. Ordinance No. 1095 - Amending Chapter 18.48.020, providing for apartments in the B-3 Zone (Approved September 2, 1981; now back in ordinance form) City Manager Evans presented Ordinance No. 1095, entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 1095 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING SECTION 18.48.020 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR APARTMENTS IN THE B-3 ZONE AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the Commission adopt Ordinance No. 1095, amending Section 18.48.020 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, providing for apartments as a permitted use in the B-3 Zone. 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. 1096 - Amending Chapter 18.12.010, providing for R-2-A and R-MH Districts I (Chapter was adopted previously; now back in ordinance form to clean up the Code) City Manager Evans presented Ordinance No. 1096, entitled: ORD I NANCE NO. 1096 AN OROINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING SECTION 18.12.010 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR R-2-A--RESIDENTIAL--SINGLE FAMILY, MEDIUM 289 DENSITY AND R-MH--RESIDENTIAL--MOBI LE HOME USE DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the Commission adopt Ordinance No. 1096, amending Section 18.12.010 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, providing for R-2-A, Residential - Single Family, High Density, and R-MH, Residential I - Mobi Ie Home Use, 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. Request - permission to sell beer - MSU Oly-Buff Days - Gallatin County Fairgrounds - February 27, 1982 City Manager Evans presented a request on behalf of MSU Oly-Buff Days for permission to sell beer at the Gallatin County Fairgrounds on February 27, 1982. This request had been deferred for one week for the Staff to obtain the information necessary to make a recommenda- tion to the Commission. City Manager Evans noted that this event could cause a policing problem, and the cost of the license would not cover the costs that could easily be incurred by the Police Depart- ment. The City Manager further stated that this function is a Montana State University activity and, therefore, should be held somewhere on the University campus. City Manager Evans concurred in the recommendation of the Police Department that this request be denied. It was moved by Commissioner Mathre, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the I Commission deny the request on behalf of the MSU Oly-Buff Days for permission to sell beer at the Gallatin County Fairgrounds on February 27, 1982. 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. Discussion - Oraft Incentive Awards Program for the City of Bozeman Mayor Stiff requested that the discussion of this draft incentive awards program for the City be deferred for a period of one week, due to the length of this meeting. Appearance by Joe Basi Ie - Barber Shop Chorus Performances - February 12 and 13, 1982 Mr. Joe Basi Ie, representing the Vocal Chord Rustlers, a barber shop quartet, stated that they will be performing on February 12 and 13, 1982. He stated that a portion of the proceeds from these performances will be donated to the Worthy Student Scholarship Fund. Mr. Basi Ie then invited the City Commissioners and the City Manager to attend the Friday evening performance, with complimentary tickets being provided to each Commissioner and the I City Manager, as well as his or her spouse. The Mayor and Commissioners thanked Mr. Basile for his appearance and the compli- mentary tickets. ') '1 '~ 7.._ '...) _,,: City Managerls Report - "Brain storming" session on City-County cooperation conducted with the Gallatin County Commission on rebruary 1, 1982. City Manager Evans stated that he had met with the County Commission on February 1, 1982, for a "brain storming" session. He stated that a list of items was covered, including: 1. Faci I ities. Possibility of City Court being located at the Law and I Justice Center. The County Commission has some reservations about this possibility; but they did not say "no." It may be possible to work out these problems within the next few months. 2. Creation of a refuse district in this area of the County. The City Manager pointed out the possibility that, in the future, the City Landfill may be closed to anyone but City residents. The County Commission feels that it is a matter of time before they become involved in a refuse district. 3. Joint purchasing. The School District could perhaps enter into this as well. At the present, this would be limited to purchasing only, but in the future a joint storage area might be considered. 4. Personnel. Both the City and County are working under State Codes. If the State Job Service is closed, the City will once again be taking applications to fill positions. A lot of record keeping and time are involved with personnel, so a joint personnel department may be considered. 5. Data processing. The City and County both have computer systems. In the future, a joint venture may be considered. 6. Health/ Medical/Dental/Vision Insurance. A joint venture may be beneficial to both entities. 7. Some equipment items. The City and County may be able to use the same piece of equipment. Presently, the City has a loose verbal agreement with the County and the State Highway Department to use various pieces of equipment, rather than purchasing something that isn't used all of the time. I 8. Shop Services. Mechanics and test equipment and tools may be more feasible if joint cooperation is instituted. 9. Joint dispatching for law enforcement, fire and ambulance. This may provide long-range savings, but compatible equipment must be considered. To be functional, one entity must control this dispatching, with the other entities contracting for services. 10. Recreation. 11. Printing. The County presently has a small printing area. The City's printing equipment has been retired to the basement and is not being used at the present time. The Commission showed an interest in these possible joint ventures and thanked the City Manager for his report and his initiative shown in meeting with the County Commissioners. Ordinance No. 1097 - Amending Chapter 18.66 providing for a Flood Hazard District (Approved January 20, 1982; now back In ordinance form) City Manager Evans presented Ordinance No. 1097, entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 1097 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.66 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE I PROVIDING FOR A FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. It was moved by Commissioner Mathre, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the Commission adopt Ordinance No. 1097, amending Chapter 18.66, providing for a Flood Hazard District. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being 291 Commissioner Mathre, Commissioner Weaver, Commissioner Vant Hull, Commissioner Anderson and Mayor Stiff; those voting No, none. Application for Raffle License - Montana Student Nurses Association - March 31, 1982 City Manager Evans presented to the Commission an application for a Raffle License on I behalf of the Montana Student Nurses Association to be held on March 31, 1982. To be raffled is a dinner for two valued at $26.00. It was moved by Commissioner Weaver, seconded by Commissioner Vant Hull, that the Commission approve the request for a raffle license on behalf of the Montana Student Nurses Association to be held on March 31, 1982. 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. Authorize Mayor to sign - Change Order No.3 - SID No. 625, Schedule I - Valley Unit Subdivision - Add $3,915.00 City Manager Evans presented to the Commission Change Order No. 3 for SID No. 625, Schedule I, in the Valley Unit Subdivision, to add the amount of $3,915.00. This Change Order would provide for the planting of trees along the stream, to fulfill the conditions of the 310 Hydraulics Permit required by the Soil Conservation Service. It was moved by Commissioner Vant Hull, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the Commission authorize the Mayor to sign Change Order No.3 for SID No. 625, Schedule I, I in the Valley Unit Subdivision, to add the amount of $3,915.00. 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. File report - Broad Valleys Federation of Libraries for December 1981 City Manager Evans stated that the monthly report for the Broad Valleys Federation of Libraries for December 1981 appeared to be in order and recommended that it be accepted and ordered filed. It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Mathre, that the monthly report for the B road Valleys Federation of Libraries for December 1981 be accepted and ordered fi led. 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. I Acknowledge report - Fire Department quarterly for October to December 1981 City Manager Evans stated that the quarterly report for the Fire Department for October to December 1981 appeared to be in order and recommended that it be accepted. It was moved by Commissioner Mathre, seconded by Commissioner Weaver, that the Commission acknowledge the report of the Fire Department for October to December 1981 and that it be brought back to the Commission next week for filing. The motion carried by the ,., ."'l ,. ..", ,'.,.~ ,(. 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. Adjournment ~ 4:50 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was I 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; those voting No, none. ALFRED M. STIFF, Mayor ATTEST: ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission I I