Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-24 Minutes, City Commission, work - - ..-------. -..--... MINUTES OF THE AGENDA MEETING/WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA April 24, 2000 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in agenda meeting and work session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, on Monday, April 24, 2000, at 3:00 pm. Present were Mayor Youngman, Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Smiley, Commissioner Kirchhoff, City Manager Johnson, City Attorney Luwe, and Deputy Clerk of the Commission Murphy. The meeting was opened with the roll call, Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Aaenda Meeting - for reaular meeting and Dublic hearings to be held on Mav 1. 2000 Since this is an agenda meeting, only those issues requiring staff action are contained in the minutes. City Manager Johnson briefly reviewed the background information which was included in the Commissioners' packets. (4) Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner, noted that Condition No. 1 needs to be corrected to say "Any existing or proposed easements within the open space area shall be . depicted on the Final Plat". Commissioner Frost asked if we typically allow open space to be used for garbage and dumping. I thought even though it is private property it needs to be maintained. There is garbage there now; you can smell it. Ms. Caroline replied it is their two retention ponds that are generating the odor. Also, they are currently hooked to their own septic facilities; but upon annexation, they will connect to city sewer/water service. (13) Chris Saunders, Associate Planner, noted that in his memo dated April 21, 2000 there is a typographical error in Section 13.57.030 Review Procedures. There are two Chapters 53; the first one should be corrected to read Chapter 52. (14) Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner, presented the CTEP project recommendations. Referring to the rehabilitation of the East Willson School building, Commissioner Brown asked if this implies there is a commitment from the school district to retain this building. Ms. Caroline answered there is a strong commitment for that, but nothing concrete has been received from the district. Commissioner Smiley added the basement is full of their stuff that they have nowhere else to put, so that suggests they need the storage area at the very least. Commissioner Brown then asked if the school district is willing to help with the matching funds. Assistant Planner Caroline replied it is the topic of an ongoing discussion, but nothing definitive has been decided. Commissioner Frost noted the Historic Preservation Board is really concerned because if the roof isn't fixed soon, the building will deteriorate so quickly . it won't be able to be saved. Ms. Caroline pointed out it is much more advantageous, both historically and financially, to restore this building rather than constructing a new facility. (16) City Manager Johnson informed the Commissioners City staff is working with a federal agency to see if we can get some funding to help pay for the purchase of the open space property and the stream relocation. We are trying to arrive at a final price figure with Potter Clinton Development, Inc. This grant does look like a good opportunity, but this purchase is still very much on the edge. Commissioner Brown asked, "Am I correct, they do have permission to relocate the stream?" City Manager Johnson indicated they do. We are saving money where we can. One last fund drive push could be very helpful. We hope to get 04-24-2000 . n_.__ ..,---.....---- --..--.-. ..- ..-..--.- -...--- -. .. - 2 - the federal grant program in place within the next couple of weeks. If the Commission approves this preliminary plat application, I believe the applicant still has the ability to go either way. They can develop either the 1710t option or the 10 lot option. City Attorney Luwe noted this is just preliminary plat approval, and they have three years to pursue final approval. I don't know what the time frame left on the other plat is. Planning Director Epple responded a year or so, I believe. . (20) Commissioner Kirchhoff asked do you remember what kind of traffic flow there is there? If you are going south on Resort Drive, can you turn right and left or just right? Senior Planner Skelton replied that with further development of each lot, a traffic study will be required. That traffic study will determine the traffic flow. Commissioner Smiley remembered they said they would be willing to pay for a connection to the light so that when someone approaches that intersection, the light will turn red so they can get out. Senior Planner Skelton said there is the possibility of limiting flow to right-turn movements out, right-turn movements in. Commissioner Kirchhoff questioned the trailer court located off of Huffine Lane, which has its entrance and exit close to this development. Mr. Skelton replied the traffic study will address this as well. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated he believes this is a recipe for unsafe conditions, exiting onto Huffine Lane. Commissioner Frost reminded him we have the authority to change this if we wish. Senior Planner Skelton also pointed out there will be an environmental assessment review, including traffic impact at a later date. (21) Planning Director Epple stated the Planning Department was late in presenting this project to the Design Review Board. They will review it this week, and their comments will be in your packets next week. Commissioner Frost wondered how much of a problem it is to move the telephone pole, which is located where they want to add additional parking. Mr. Epple replied I don't know the exact figure, but I believe it is pricey. We will contact Montana Power and verify the pole can be moved, and we will have an answer for you by next week. . (22) Planning Director Epple stated this information was mistakenly advanced to you this week; it is scheduled for a future date of June 5. Work Session - (A) Presentation re future of landfill and various oPtions for consideration; (B) Discussion re anonymous letters: process for responses to letters to Commissioners: and (C) Discussion re Commissioner Liaison roles (A) Presentation re future of landfill and various options for consideration Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo from Project Engineer Karen Finke, dated April 19, 2000, forwarding a copy of the City of Bozeman Solid Waste Alternatives Study, as prepared by Damschen-Entranco. Project Engineer Finke briefly reviewed the existing landfill facilities. The City presently owns 200 acres at that location. Most of the landfill activity is taking place to the south of Churn Creek. The original cell was opened in 1969 and lasted until 1997. This 30- acre cell was unlined, as lining was not required at that time. The current cell was opened in 1997 and has approximately three to six years left before it reaches capacity. This is a 15- . acre site, which has a geosynthetic liner. Both areas are classified as class II - household and municipal waste. There is also a class III area, which can accept any type of inert waste. The landfill has a white goods area and a compost area as well. There is a methane gas problem in the unlined, closed cell, which has caused contamination of the ground water. Corrective measures are currently being undertaken. The City contracted with Damschen-Entranco to conduct a Solid Waste Alternatives Study. Knowing it will take two or three years for the design, approval, and construction of a new landfill, it was decided to undertake this study now. From the conclusions of that study, City staff recommends Alternative No.1, which is to continue to utilize the current 04-24-2000 .---..---. ______...____ __...__n_._ - 3 - landfill site. Barry Damschen, Damschen-Entranco, presented an overview of their findings. This study was started three months ago, and the first step was to look at the available options. We then narrowed those down to these four options presented to you today. We also conducted a preliminary cost estimate, comparing capital costs and annual costs. We went over these numbers a couple of times with City staff before preparing this report. . Table 1 shows the four options which have been identified; specifically, expand the existing landfill; construct a transfer station and haul the City's waste to Logan, which is the County's landfill facility and has a 40-year life expectancy without the City's waste and a 15. to 20-year life with the City's waste; site a new landfill; or construct a municipal composting facility. Also identified are the three major cost components. landfill, transfer station or composting facility, and general administrative costs. Option 1 - The southeast corner of the landfill site has been used up until the present. We are now looking at the 100 acres on the northern part of the site, which is currently licensed through the state. A detailed hydrogeologic study and the installation of groundwater and methane monitoring wells would be required. A final design review would also have to be conducted. The usable 40-acre site should last through the next 20 years or so. Assuming there is a continued 1.5 percent increase per year in garbage, this analysis is based on 47 tons of waste per year. This new section could be comprised of five, ten, or fifteen acre cells. Cell costs are projected to be $300,000 per acre, which includes liners in both the bottom and over the top to meet all regulations, amortizing costs over the life of the cell, and a little bit of interest. It is projected the City will go through 2.3 acres per year. It would also be necessary to put money aside to monitor for groundwater contamination and methane gas. . This financial assurance is required by law. The projected cost to get this area ready, including new roads, fences, moving the scales and landfill building, if that should be necessary, is $400,000. Option 2 - To construct a transfer station would cost approximately $1.6 million for the facility and another $600,000 for the equipment. Landfill fees at Logan are estimated to be $28/ton, which is negotiable at this point. Option 3 - Will have more costs because we will have to locate and develop a new site. This process typically takes a minimum of five years. Additional costs will be incurred if the new site is located more than 12 miles from Bozeman, which would require a transfer station. Option 4 - A new composting facility would be built at the current landfill site at a cost of approximately $12 million. We took the figures from the 1997 study conducted for Gallatin County and updated those figures for inflation and a couple of other items. While 60 percent of the composted material could be sold, the remaining 40 percent would need to be hauled to the Logan landfill, which would incur additional costs. The general administrative costs came from the city budget, and those costs will generally be the same no matter which route you go. . When you look at the costs, the differences between options one and two is approximately $600,000 to $800,000 per year. There is a decided cost difference between option one and options two or three, which are close. Therefore, we recommend you continue to expand the current landfill rather than closing it down and doing something different. Commissioner Brown asked if under the second option, would there be a significant savings if the transfer station were built on the west side of town? Mr. Damschen replied without particularly studying that, he would say there isn't any advantage to it. 04-24-2000 - 4 - City Manager Johnson asked what percentage of all the solid waste collected in Bozeman is the 47 million tons. Street/Sanitation Superintendent Sicz replied we don't know for sure. Private haulers drop off approximately 50 percent of the total volume, with City trucks picking up nearly 13 percent. City Manager Johnson continued, we had recent testimony from a private hauler that indicated taking trash to Logan was considerably cheaper than this figure. How is that? Mr. Damschen replied he would have to look at that. I will stand by these figures, but I will check into it. . Commissioner Frost questioned, for clarification, the growth of garbage is going to be 1.5 percent per year? Mr. Damschen answered we have tracked the amount of trash coming into the landfill, from the scales, looked at the population of the area, and asked to have the population for the next 20 years projected. Based on those projections, we came up with the 1.5 percent. This is primarily a factor based on population increase. Mayor Youngman pointed out we underestimated the last 20 years' growth. Mr. Damschen noted increased population growth would favor expanding the landfill even more. Over the short term, you would save money. It will save you even more at the 60 to 70 ton levels. Once this landfill is full, you will have to do something else. Are you going to do it now, or in 15 to 20 years? You have saved yourself $10 million over that period by expanding the landfill. Mayor Youngman noted, in regard to the composting facility, which would dramatically extend the life of our landfill and Logan's as well, that savings isn't factored into creating the new composting facility. For long-term planning we need to get a grip on that. The composting facility may not necessarily be in Bozeman; it could be a joint facility in some other location. There are a lot of variables, and I need some way to look at this and manage the variables. How far can we put off what we have to do next by expanding the life of the landfills? . Mr. Damschen replied another way to cost out the composting option would be to say we are going to put the composting operation at the landfill. The cost savings still don't tip the scales toward composting. Mayor Youngman asked what about extending the life of one or both landfills; don't you need to include this in factoring the costs? Mr. Damschen replied all the landfills are now full; what are we going to do with our trash? We can go out and find a brand new landfill at $56 per ton, including the cost of the transfer station. It will be tough to find a landfill location close to town, so you will need a transfer station. Compare that to a composting facility at today's dollars of $79 per ton. You will still find a new landfill will be cheaper than the composting facilities. He added if the composting technology is such that it competes with the $57 per ton figure, that will be the time you will want to go out and make that decision. Meanwhile, you don't want to bet there will be something cheaper out there in 20 years; it will cost $10 million in taxpayers' dollars to do that. Mayor Youngman questioned if any of the information factored in the revenues from composting. The other options don't have the potential of revenues. Mr. Damschen answered no, revenues were not included. Any composting facilities we have visited and costed out have told us time and again you had better not justify your composting facilities based on revenues because you cannot count on them. You would need $2 million in revenues, which we all know is absurd. The City is deferring trash to the "Binnie" program and the small green space you have devoted to composting. Currently about ten percent of the trash is being diverted. This is remarkable in comparison to other towns in the surrounding area; recycling . in Bozeman is way above average. City Engineer Brawner asked about the scaleability of a county-wide project. Would the cost per ton be dramatically affected by making this a county-wide composting facility? Mr. Damschen replied you could get some savings from labor and operating and maintenance, probably 35 to 40 percent; but it definitely would not get you anywhere close to break even. You might go from $79 per ton down to $70 per ton at the very best, but without having those figures available to me that is just a guess. Mayor Youngman questioned the methane gas contamination problem. How much 04-24-2000 - 5 - methane gas would be generated by composting? City Engineer Brawner replied there is no methane gas generated; inorganic materials will not produce methane, so that would be a benefit to composting. Referring to Option No.1, Mayor Youngman stated we would be getting closer to selling the methane because we would be generating more. Mr. Damschen noted you generate a small amount of methane here compared to other large landfills. Engineer Finke stated we have a small percentage of gas generated, probably only enough to possibly heat the landfill building. Streets/Sanitation Superintendent Sicz added he is looking at something like that, but right now it is not cost effective. City Engineer Brawner also noted . the new cells are built so you will not have methane gas generation. The question will be do we have enough gas to generate monies from selling it? Eventually the cell will stop producing methane, and there will not be the migration of it. It's the principle of diminishing returns. Engineer Finke added the landfill's gas generation is currently running about 140 cubic feet per minute and 200 to 300 cubic feet per minute is required to use for fuel. City Manager Johnson said I continue to be troubled by these numbers. If we collect 13 percent of all the garbage collected in the city, where is the other 87 percent of that collected going? Mr. Sicz replied they are bringing it into the landfill themselves. Mr. Damschen added all the garbage is coming into the landfill, we are just not sure who is bringing it in. Streets/Sanitation Superintendent Sicz noted a substantial amount is coming in from other haulers. Bozeman, Belgrade, Manhattan, and all other areas within 15 miles haul into our landfill right now. City Manager Johnson asked for a comparison between December's tonnage and the current tonnage. Mr. Sicz responded we are averaging about 5,000 tons per month in recent months; our tonnage has doubled in the last three months. If the private haulers go somewhere else, our volume could change by 25,000 tons annually. City Manager Johnson replied I think that leaves us with a more expensive alternative, needing both Options 1 and 2. Our only ability to control the time to closure is through the transfer station. Mr. Sicz said depending on what the state requires, I worry about funding future cleanup of the old cell if it should . become necessary. I worry about getting out of the business, and then we need to have revenues to fund the clean up. City Manager Johnson stated if we fill this landfill and we are forced to look at one of the alternatives, it doesn't give us the ability to do any capital planning and timing for closing this facility. If a transfer station will allow us to plan the closure of this site, we can address the issues Roger is talking about as well as the issues of watching over a potential monopoly in the solid waste business. Mr. Damschen reiterated the least expensive option for Bozeman is to use the current landfill. You can always consider putting a ban on accepting any garbage generated outside the city, which will extend the life of the current landfill. You can reserve the savings for future expenses. I would seriously consider passing an ordinance stating all garbage hauled into our landfill will be generated in this city, like water and sewer hookups are required for annexation. Quite honestly, that probably is the best option for the taxpayers in the City of Bozeman; however, people in the hinterlands won't be happy. City Manager Johnson asked, "Are you saying we are subsidizing non-residents by offering this rate?" Mr. Damschen replied everyone who is contributing to this landfill is contributing to this $37 per ton rate, so that probably is a true statement - residents inside the city are subsidizing those living outside the city limits. City Engineer Brawner added it is the . same as with our water and sewer facilities; we have a limited commodity as to how much room is available. We are particular about annexation with our water and wastewater services; which gives us a higher degree of controlling our destiny. We are guaranteed what our revenues are; but if somebody drops out, our income will fluctuate. Mr. Damschen stated the bottom line is the $10 million in savings; and once it is gone, it is gone. What you do with the $10 million savings is up to you. When the County comes in, you are subsidizing them at the expense of City residents. Mr. Sicz noted even if we expand on the other side of Churn Creek, we can always shut down if something better comes along. Just because we expand, doesn't mean we can't 04-24-2000 - 6 - stop. We are under the gun now because we only have three to four years left. Mr. Damschen agreed you could close any cell and walk away at any time. You could open a smaller cell; and in five years when that segment is filled, look at this again. Commissioner Frost asked, under federal law, what can be done with a cell that is closed? Can it be used for parks? Streets/Sanitation Superintendent Sicz answered, "Sure." We have 20 extraction wells right now; and once these wells are exhausted, by all means this landfill could become a recreation/play area. Mr. Damschen added grazing and parks are the . two main uses of former landfills. Golf courses and trails are also common uses. You can't build structures on them, but that is about the only limitation on former landfills. Commissioner Frost then asked about the old landfill portion. Engineer Finke replied I would be hesitant to do that unless we can protect the extraction wells. Mayor Youngman asked how much longer will we need the wells? Ms. Finke said it will probably be 20 to 30 years before the gas peters out. Rex Easton, 9315 Cougar Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the letter from him distributed in the Commission packets. You have already touched on most of my concerns. This is not a comprehensive plan; page 3 of this report states that. Our concern is even though you do proceed with Option 1 now, you are going to have to do Options 2 and 3 someday down the road. You should look at these options now. The 1992 report from Damschen recommended we do that then. Now it is 2000 and we still don't have a comprehensive plan. I ask you to take your time and allow the public time to respond. Look at other options; there are more than the four presented here today. This will allow time to get your concerns answered as well. No committee has been formed to examine other options; I would like you to take the time to do that. What about the requirement a study be conducted on pollution; has that problem been resolved? What about the required landscaping at the landfill; that hasn't been done. What do we do when this is closed? Can we make better use of the land by not going in and destroying the remaining land? You need to step back and take a look at the growth of the city; is this environmentally sound practice? . Commissioner Kirchhoff, referring to Mr. Easton's letter, noted Mr. Easton had signed as President, Board of Directors. Commissioner Kirchhoff then asked Mr. Easton what Board of Directors that was, to which Mr. Easton replied, "Golf Course Partners". Charles Bowen, 3070 Mcllhattan Road and northern landowner, stated he has been familiar with and followed this since 1983. The City Commission has stated their number one priority is the closing of this landfill, and the opening of another one somewhere else. I am not prepared to go into depth at looking at this issue now, since I just got this information from Karen Finke today. The City never comes up with a long-term plan. My property currently has one house on it, and there are two other adjacent strips of land owned by various individuals. We all would like to subdivide our properties. Subdivisions currently exist near this landfill, and there are more that will be proposed. This landfill is surrounded by development. When you talk about long-term planning, when are you going to face the issue with regard to opening a new landfill? Every Commission says they will, but they never do. What is that property going to be like in 17 years? How is this going to fit in with the surrounding development? You cannot see the current landfill cell; but when you expand to the top of the hill, it will be visible from all around. Mcllhattan Road has been improved dramatically, but the garbage trucks are not using Mcllhattan Road. Rather, they are going around. This is a County road. Do you need permission; do modifications have to be made to have heavy trucks hauling on this road? I didn't hear anyone say they have actually looked for land that could be used as a new site. . How much harder will it be for you to pick a site in 20 years; what will be the cost; will the land be available then? I have a question regarding the direct haulage cost, $564,000, for the new site. How was this figure arrived at? Mr. Damschen replied I assumed it would cost $3.00 per mile times 47,000 tons per year, which is what it costs you to run the packer trucks. Waste comes in in different manners, so it is hard to calculate. You have to put a factor on it. If you move the landfill farther away and if the citizen doesn't drive his garbage to the landfill, then the City will have to. It's a tough one to put a number to, I agree. 04-24-2000 .. .. -., ._-,,--- ----- .--..----.----... - 7 - Harry Kirschenbaum,141 North Choteau Avenue, asked about line item number III, General Administration Costs, specifically item b., internal office, an annual cost of $85,000. Mr. Damschen replied that is a cost all departments pay into the City in general. It pays for their share of computers, etc. John Mcllhattan, 2717 Mcllhattan Roard, stated he came before the Commission 25 years ago regarding the contamination of the water. I spent $500 of my own money to have it tested; and sure enough, the spring at the corner of my field is contaminated. Several . carginogens are running into that field, but I haven't heard a word about my water rights. I have a pipeline easement from a spring located in the area of the proposed cell, which serves my livestock and my home. I also have a 60 foot well, which I do not want to be contaminated as well. Nothing has been done so far to clean up the contamination. I haven't heard a word about how you are going to protect my water rights. I can see that we are going to continue to have contamination; it all runs downhill from this site into my fields. Bob Mctlhattan, 1700 Manley Road, said that creek goes right into my well and will contaminate it. I will not sit still for that! Our field is ruined, and you have given us a snow job for 20 years regarding how you are going to clean this contamination up. Churn Creek runs into the Gallatin River, and yet our stock will not drink that water unless they are about to die from dehydration. We only get the water reports that are good; we have to go somewhere else to get the water reports that are bad. Before you start polluting both of those streams, you had better figure out an alternative. Our stock is dying, and we are sending out tissue samples to have them analyzed. You are going to have another Buttrey site. Mr. Damschen responded the new cell will have a double liner, which meets state requirements. We don't anticipate any further pollution from the proposed sites to the north, although we would have to stay away from Churn Creek. We would also have to relocate Mr. Mcllhattan's lines at City expense. . The Mcllhattans expressed concern about the contamination from the runoff of the current composting area. Mr. Sicz responded there is little runoff, and what there is goes into a retention pond. Commissioner Frost questioned the new cell and the leachate collection pond. Streets/Sanitation Superintendent Sicz replied when this first cell opened, it was a 15-acre site, and it did overrun into the storm water pond. I had it tested, and it was as clean as any other storm water. There is very little leachate at this time. The pond has not come close to overflowing and should never overflow again. We have pumps available; and if the leachate comes up over half way, we will pump it out. City Engineer Brawner added the Department of Environmental Quality said we had to take the entire contents of the storm water pond and put it into the sanitary sewage facility. Mr. Damschen noted it would be a similar design for the proposed new cell. The Mcllhattans expressed concern about blowing papers and garbage on their property. Mr. Sicz stated we are required by the Department of Environmental Quality to have an inspector on board to do daily waste inspections and clean up. With high winds, we hire additional workers to go out onto the adjacent properties to clean up. We have a proactive program for litter control. We have been on the Mcllhattans' property several times picking up papers and litter. . Mayor Youngman asked the Commission what direction they would like to take. Commissioner Frost answered he would like more information regarding the water going across the fields and so forth. I want to know for sure what is going on there. Without more information, I am not ready to say anything. Initially I was ready to do what is best for the citizens of Bozeman and we need a landfill; but if it is going to cause pollution, we need to go somewhere else. We need to make sure we meet federal and state standards. Please put together a report stating what we do now and what we need to do to make it better. Engineer Finke replied she will prepare something addressing both groundwater and storm water. Commissioner Smiley stated she would like to have a copy of Mcllhattans' contamination information from them. She also asked for more clarification where this spring is and more 04-24-2000 - 8 - delineation of where Churn Creek and the other creek are. Mayor Youngman said I am hoping we can get more of a comprehensive plan. There is every possibility we will fill this up sooner than projected. We are not that far from needing another piece of property. We need to be able to think about the environmental concerns and long-time costs to the taxpayers. We need answers to questions raised today before we can make a decision. . Commissioner Kirchhoff stated I think we need some kind of a hybrid plan of what we have now. We need to determine if the landfill is more of a liability or an asset. I don't want to change the location of a problem. I agreed we need a hybrid of Options 1 and 2. We need to get more intense to look for alternatives, other than what we saw today. City Manager Johnson committed Staff to follow up on specific questions and concerns raised by both the Commissioners and the public and to bring back that information to a second work session. All agreed to do nothing without further public discussion and to continue this discussion in the future. (B) Discussion re anonymous letters; process for responses to letters to Commissioners Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo from Clerk of the Commission Sullivan, dated April 20, 2000. City Manager Johnson stated that if a letter is addressed to the City Manager and City Commissioners, I respond; I don't respond to those addressed to City Commissioners only. Unsigned letters I can't respond to because I don't know who to respond to. . Mayor Youngman stated we did have a standard letter we sent out, but that doesn't always happen. Commissioner Brown said as a County Commissioner I had bad experiences with unsigned letters, and I want to nip it in the bud. I would prefer to not see unsigned letters unless they refer to public safety issues or the like. What kind of a policy do we have? Commissioner Smiley stated I would like to see everything that comes in, and I will decide how to value it. Commissioner Brown asked if we are required to keep things, to which City Manager Johnson replied, "We keep everything". City Attorney Luwe said my recommendation would be to distribute them. Whether you respond to it or not is up to you. You can attach whatever credibility you want to it. Commissioner Frost stated he would prefer to just deal with them individually. Mayor Youngman told Commissioner Brown we have not had the kinds of letters you received as a County Commissioner. Mayor Youngman also said she is comfortable with continuing the policy of distributing anonymous letters and attaching whatever weight you wish to them. The Commissioners agreed that continuing the existing practice of distributing anonymous letters is acceptable. Mayor Youngman continued on to the policy for answering signed letters to the Commissioners. Our current policy is they all receive a response. We haven't been responding to anything that is public testimony. To all others, we should make sure the practice of responding is consistent; and we need to work out a process for making sure they are . answered. Perhaps a checklist for making sure letters are answered promptly. Commissioner Kirchhoff asked who does the responding? Commissioner Smiley suggested Commissioners could receive a copy of the response. Mayor Youngman replied the response is always the same. Do you want a standard response or an individual one, and how would you like to distinguish? A standard response can be very frustrating. Is there some way you want to distinguish? Maybe during FYI we could flag those that need an individual response. Weekly individual responses will be brought up during FYI, and we will decide who will be responsible to respond. Commissioner Frost agreed with weekly individual responses and everything else should be generic. Mayor Youngman volunteered to devise a checklist for checking on responses. 04-24-2000 - 9 - Commissioner Smiley noted our standing in the community will die if we don't respond to these letters. Mayor Youngman reminded the Commissioners we are behind in minutes, so how do you want to address this? We need to prioritize. Commissioner Frost replied minutes should be the first priority. Commissioner Brown agreed. Commissioner Smiley pointed out the letters can get backlogged, too. Mayor Youngman stated standardized letters don't take very long. Does the Commission want to say that standardized responses go out, period, every two weeks? Commissioner Frost said I want to see the numbers; if it is an overload, we will need to make some changes. We have to have the minutes in a timely . fashion. Commissioner Kirchhoff asked for policy clarification. Mayor Youngman replied the minutes are a top priority. Secondly, within a two-week period standardized responses will go out for every letter received. Any letter received for individualized responses will be flagged during FYI for Commissioner responses. They may be a modestly individualized response that we can delegate to Robin and Karen. For example, during FYI we could say please add this sentence to this letter. Is it Commission pleasure we have Karen and Robin send out standardized letters with our additions? All agreed. (C) Discussion re Commissioner Liaison roles Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo from Clerk of the Commission Sullivan, dated April 20, 2000, and excerpts from the minutes of the meetings of January 8/ 1996; January 5, 1998; and January 3, 2000. City Manager Johnson said I will loan Helene (Greninger) to you to put together a brochure to describe what the boards do, who is on them, who the liason is, how to reach them, the role of the liason, with an application to apply to be on that board on the back. We will give this document to current board members or those interested in being on boards, and we will add them to the public brochure display upstairs so the public can read what the . boards are about. The Commissioners agreed to authorize Ms. Greninger to draft a brochure for their review. Commissioner Smiley said, "So, Helene could go and meet with the boards and straighten out the membership?" City Manager Johnson answered she could call and ask if people are still on the board, and if they are interested in staying on this board. Mayor Youngman added some have written descriptions of what they do; other boards do not. This would be a good communication tool for existing board members and those interested in serving on boards. Commissioner Smiley noted it has taken the Downtown Bozeman Improvement District Board four or five months to straighten out their membership. It also takes time to do the research and get resignation letters from those who have resigned. City Manager Johnson reminded the Commissioners they have to describe what the liason role is. Commissioner Brown noted in the past several years it appears some of the contacts have now gone to liasons. Mayor Youngman said the liason role does not necessarily mean there is an expectation to attend meetings. Looking at a list from a couple of years ago, we have brought them up to 100 percent of the boards having contacts at least. There is no rhyme or reason as to whether they should be listed as a contact or meeting. I would suggest we just say the liason is in essence a contact level position, with the hope Commissioners would attend whenever they could. You would be an advocate for the board whenever needed. That seems more reasonable. The standard to expect Commissioners to attend every meeting . is unrealistic and means you cannot be a part-time Commissioner. Commissioner Smiley stated if we can't get minutes from these boards and we can't find out what they are doing, we need to revisit the need for that particular board. Mayor Youngman said we should set a standard so that retired individuals, as well as those who work and have small children, can be Commissioners; and that every Commissioner can be a contact. If they can attend meetings, that would be a bonus. There is no logic as to why some of these are meetings and others are contacts. 04-24-2000 - 1 0 ~ Referring to page 8 of the January 3, 2000 minutes, Commissioner Smiley asked are these members voting members? Mayor Youngman responded where it says member, it is a voting member. We didn't think to distinguish between contact and meeting on the new list. There is no particular reason why some should be contact only, while others are expected to be in attendance at every meeting. Commissioner Frost suggested two labels; liason and member. Liasons are not required to do anything, actually; but I think we have to have the boards' minutes. The boards needs to know who their liason is, too. We have to have their minutes if the boards want us to know what is going on. Commissioner Smiley suggested we . need a letter to go out to every board that it is required they give us minutes. Mayor Youngman noted the policy used to be if someone was absent from two meetings, they could ask for the resignation of that member if the board wished. We could mention that as well. Joe (Frost), are you suggesting there is no attendance requirement for any of the liason positions? Commissioner Frost answered I am attending meetings when I can; those held in the evenings. I have let everyone know who I am and they can contact me if they would like me to attend a meeting, or if there is something they need input on from me. It is a lot to ask to add another four boards, 10 or 15 hours per month. I have other responsibilities as does everyone else. I don't want to have a Commission where everyone has to be either retired or wealthy to serve. We need to hear from our boards, that is for sure. Commission Smiley agreed it is a lot to attend all these meetings. "I do, and I plan to continue; but that is my decision. I rarely miss a meeting. We need to clarify the times and meeting dates." Commissioner Kirchhoff stated the role of the liason is to be available and to help out as needed. I agree, we do need the minutes. Mayor Youngman added the liasons need to help the board members understand City procedures and provide them with names and numbers of City staff to call. The Commissioners agreed that unless they are required to attend board meetings because their role is that of a "member", the liason role will remain consistent with . traditional policy, which is that liasons are not expected to attend board meetings, rather to serve as a resource person to assist the boards, to help the boards to get scheduled on the agenda when needed, be an advocate for the boards, and to act as the board contact person on the City Commission. Commissioner Smiley said that whatever gets sent out to the boards should include our e-mail addresses, street addresses, and phone numbers. Mayor Youngman stated we also need to let the board chairs know we have some money in the budget now for board expenses. Ms. Greninger will draft a brochure for Commission review. Ms. Greninger said she needs information on the boards because she doesn't have any. I would like to know if you have any specific way you want the introduction to read. Mayor Youngman replied that will be tricky because this will be a dual-purpose brochure. Any introductory passage you have will be an introduction to new members as well as a sales pitch to prospective ones. The brochures will also list the liasons and the nature of the boards. Commissioner Frost said Ms. Greninger will need to ask if the board membership is current and correct. Mayor Youngman also asked that the board's mission be clarified. Those are not necessarily up to date right now. Some missions are established by ordinance; others are by statement; others have nothing. Helene (Greninger) can't figure out this wording from scratch; that is the boards' responsibility. If they won't help you, get with the liason to help you do that. If it turns out they don't have anything in writing, tell them to call their liason. . Discussion . FYI Items City Manager Johnson presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information" items. (1 ) Copy of a letter from the Chief of the Emergency Services to the medical staff members at Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, dated April 13, announcing that the Bozeman Fire Department will begin providing advanced life support services. (2) Copy of a letter from Nick Shrauger to the County Commissioners, dated 04-24-2000 --------- - 11 - April 15, requesting the creation of a citizen task force to examine Bozeman area fire protection and expenditures. (3) Copy of an e-mail message to City Manager Johnson from Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell announcing that 5.83 tons of solid waste were accepted at the landfill, at no cost, in conjunction with Clean Up Bozeman Day. (4) Copy of a phone message thanking Cliff Christie for his exceptional garbage . collection services. (5 ) Letter from Anna Newman, Eric Noyes and Sheila Devitt, dated April 13, asking that a partial closure of South 6th Avenue, along the south side of West Cleveland Street, be installed in accordance with the plan for closure of South 7th Avenue in 1995. (6) Copy of an ad announcing that the Headwaters Cooperative Recycling Project began accepting magazines during the week of April 17. (7) Copy of a news release from the Headwaters Cooperative Recycling Project announcing that they are accepting telephone books. (8) Copy of a public service announcement from the Water Department regarding the City's report on the quality of its drinking water. (9) Copy of an e-mail message from Administrative Services Director Gamradt to Streets/Sanitation Superintendent Roger Sicz regarding Capital Improvement Program (CIP) items. (10) Copy of a letter from the Montana League of Cities and Towns, dated April 12, seeking input on establishing a public power authority in Montana. . (11 ) Minutes from the Tree Advisory Board meetings held on March 8 and April 12, 2000. ( 12) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 25, in the Commission Room. ( 13) Agenda for the Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25, in the Commission Room. (14) Agenda for the County Commission meeting to be held at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 25, at the Courthouse. (15) Agenda for the County Planning Board meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25, at the Courthouse. City Manager Johnson referred to a memo from Alec Hansen, Montana League of Cities and Towns, saying we are considering buying Montana Power Company, so be sure to read that memo. Commissioner Kirchhoff distributed a copy of the Watts & Associates proposal. Read . through it and see what you think. Can we schedule some time next week to discuss this? Basically they have come up with a three-tiered proposal for us; there is lots to think about. I passed out an FYI that has a snippet regarding Billings' master plan. On the other side is an e-mail message from Janet Smith-Heimer. They are interested in having a conference call with me and anyone else. They are another firm that is interested in doing the same thing. They are interested in our quality of life concerns. Maybe we could do this here during the lunch hour or whatever is best for everyone else. It needs to be done this week because this is a competing firm that would be able to add another dimension and proposal. City Manager Johnson said I would be happy to respond to the letter from the 04-24-2000 - 12 - Northeast University Neighborhood Representatives and copy it to the Commissioners. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated the Library Board wants me to pass along to you that they would like to get going on this project. We don't want to throwaway the money they have already spent. I told them they would have to be patient, and we will let them know after we get further into our budget process. If they don't get this on as a bond issue, they will have wasted their $30,000. Mayor Youngman responded I said earlier that they should attend our CIP discussion meeting. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted Alice Meister, Library Director, has . asked that City Manager Johnson and I go to the morning session of their all-day library staff meeting on May 5. Maybe we can bring them an answer then. City Manager Johnson stated the next CIP meeting will be scheduled for May 8. We were going to try to contact groups to attend. I don't think many people are prepared for bond referendums yet. Mayor Youngman suggested we need to think about moving the CIP discussion to the evening, so those who cannot be free during the afternoon will be able to attend. City Manager Johnson said as far as the library goes, if they get appraisals on the property and have the opportunity to buy that property, they don't need the bond issue before they proceed with that. Owning property isn't a scary deal, because there is always resale value on property. Mayor Youngman asked should we separate that out from the CIP meeting? City Manager Johnson responded I think that would be a good idea. Commissioner Kirchhoff reminded them that is a $4 to $6 million budget. City Manager Johnson replied I don't think all of it will be ready at once. Commissioner Frost said he would like to know what is happening with the Fire Department and the hospital. City Manager Johnson explained the way Emergency Medical Services in Montana works is that you need to get a license to give basic life support until the ambulance arrives. The Fire Department has worked with Dr. Majxner to get trained, and the . hospital has purchased two pieces of equipment for the Fire Department to use. Dr. Majxner has said he is so impressed with the Quality of work the Bozeman Fire Department has done, he is recommending the Fire Department go ahead with increased life support training. This could put the Fire Department in a position to compete with American Medical Response (AMR) if we should choose to do that. We operate day to day not knowing if AMR is going to be here tomorrow. They are a subsidiary of Laidlaw, who has stated they are considering pulling out of this area. If necessary, we could partner with the hospital, given the increased training. City Manager Johnson continued. Regarding the Montana Power purchase, Assistant City Manager Brey will get a memo out to you and will discuss today's meeting in more detail. He attended a preliminary meeting in Helena today on this subject. Commissioner Brown stated he noticed the 9-1-1 Administrative Board unanimously voted to approve a $49,000 budget increase recommendation for 9-1-1. Will we get that information? City Manager Johnson replied you will get the budget amendments all at once from Miral. There are still items regarding 9-1-1 that need to be worked out. Adjournment - 6: 17 D.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the meeting be . adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Smiley, Commissioner Kirchhoff, and Mayor Youngman; those voting No, none. 04-24-2000 - 13 - ~ (J itrr---- MARCIA B. YOUNGMAN, Mayor ATTEST: (}~;/ ~ ROBIN L. SULLIVAN . Clerk of the Commission PREPARED BY: KAREN L. MURPHY Deputy Clerk of the Commi sion . . 04-24-2000 ----.---"... ------.. - ------