Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-02 Minutes, City Commission MINUTES OF THE AGENDA MEETING/SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA January 2, 1996 ********************** ******* . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in an agenda meeting and special meeting in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, January 2, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Vincent, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Sianina of Notice of SDecial Meetina Each of the Commissioners, in turn, signed the Notice of Special Meeting. . Agenda Meeting ~ for regular meeting and Dublic hearinas to be held on Januarv 8. 1996 Since this is an agenda meeting, only those issues requiring staff action are contained in the minutes. City Manager Wysocki briefly reviewed the background information which was included in the Commissioners' packets. (5) Commissioner Stiff asked for the tabulation of salaries and benefits that has been provided to the Commission in past years. (7) Commissioner Frost asked that the Commission be provided with a site map showing the adjacent property owners, the drainage ditch and the old river channel. Director of Public Service Forbes provided a color aerial photo of the area, showing the Wastewater Treatment Plant and caretaker's home, the Riverside Golf Course and adjacent . housing development. the drainage ditch and the old river channel. He noted that the river bend where the problems have occurred is greater than 90 degrees; and the river has broken through what was previously an old head gate for the irrigation canal. The old canal is much shorter than the original channel for the river, which meanders through the golf course. He expressed concern that, according to river mechanics, a river must be a certain length; and if 01 ~02-96 - - 2 - it is shortened in one area, it will try to make up that length somewhere downstream. He noted that in this instance, some of that meandering could occur along the City's property, possibly creating some problems for the caretaker's home. The Director of Public Service noted that at the present time, since most of the water . is running through the old canal, the old river channel has stagnant water standing it; and that ... water creates a breeding ground for various bugs and mosquitos. He noted that the homeowners are interested in seeing the river back in its old channel for aesthetic reasons as well as alleviating the bug problems. The Director stated that under this proposal, a dike is to be built where the old head gate was located in a manner that should hold the river. Any overflows from the river would still flow into the canal, to alleviate flooding problems. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Director of Public Service suggested that the Commission should consider authorizing funding of one-third to one-half of the costs of this project, with the remainder of the costs to be borne by the Riverside Golf Club and the homeowners' association in that immediate area. He suggested that, in addition to . authorization for a certain percentage of the project, the Commission should consider establishing a maximum amount of monies to be expended, to ensure that the costs do not become exorbitant. (8) The City Manager stated that the upcoming Mayor is typically appointed as the Mayor Pro Tempore; however, there is nothing in writing which requires that it. (9 through 32) Commissioner Stueck suggested that the Commission discuss the appointments of Commissioner liaisons and members to the various boards and commissions at this time, rather than deferring it until next week's meeting. The Commissioners generally concurred with the appointments as discussed. In response to Commissioner Stueck, City Attorney Luwe indicated that all of the appointments can be made by a single motion and vote at next week's meeting. . (37) City Manager Wysocki asked that a copy of the written comment in opposition to this requested Certificate of Appropriateness with deviations be included in next week's packet. Commissioner Frost stated his intent to ask the applicant's representative about the applicant's willingness to install a porch railing in conjunction with relocation of the front door, 01-02-96 --...----.------.- -- - 3 - as suggested by Historic Preservation Planner Strahn in his staff report. (40) Commissioner Frost asked what the total signage would be on the site if the proposed freestanding sign is approved and the roof sign is allowed to remain, and the total amount of signage allowed on the subject site under the sign code. . (41) Commissioner Frost expressed concern that the standard condition pertaining to lighting has not been carried forward in some of the latest applications; and the lighting for those projects does comply with the zone code but not the design objectives for the entryway overlay corridors. Planning Director Epple stated that staff has tried to make a conscious effort to ensure that the lighting design which is approved for a project is in compliance with the zone code. He noted that for some projects where theme lighting has previously been approved as a part of the architectural guidelines, such as the Festival Square Subdivision on West Main Street, the lighting may not comply with the current zone code requirements, which were adopted after the guidelines were approved. Responding to the City Manager, Planning Intern Chris Williams stated that the 15- . foot-wide landscape buffer along West Mendenhall Street is behind the sidewalk, on private property. City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that, in addition to the regular meeting next week, the reorganization meeting is to be held at 10:00 a.m.; and the draft agenda for that meeting has been included in the Commissioners' packets. Ordinance No. 1414 - implementing impact fees for City streets. fire. water and wastewater services Included in the Commissioners' packets was a copy of Ordinance No. 1414, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 1414 . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA. PROVIDING THAT THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO BE NUMBERED AS CHAPTER 3.24, PROVIDING FOR FIRE. WATER, WASTEWATER AND STREET IMPACT FEES. City Manager Wysocki noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets was a 01-02-96 -- .---.--- - ..-- ----.- -.-.- -. -- --.... - 4 - memo from Director of Public Service Forbes, dated December 27, responding to public testimony received. Director of Public Service Phi II Forbes reviewed his memo, cautioning the Commission that the monthly water bills and the proposed impact fees are based on two distinct and . separate methods of measurement. He noted that a '-inch service line can deliver 2 Y, times the amount of water that a 3/4-inch service line can deliver; and that is the basis upon which the impact fees have been calculated. He stated that, in the meantime, the monthly water bill is based upon the amount of water consumed for that month. He noted that the Uniform Plumbing Code establishes the size of water meter to be installed for a particular type of commercial, although a 3/4-inch service line is the typical size for a residence. The Director noted that in Mr. Scott Heck's case, because the service line to his house is so long, a 1-inch service line was installed to ensure that adequate water was available. His office, because of the number of fixtures installed, on the other hand, has only a 3/4-inch service line. He characterized that this is an anomaly rather than a typical situation. He distributed a graph showing the water consumptions for both Mr. Heck's residence and . office building for the past three years, noting those graphs reflect that sometimes the home use is higher and sometimes of the office use is higher. He stated that the rate schedule for monthly water consumption is an AWWA~recognized standard type of schedule; and it takes into account the fact that during peak hours, a home may use as much as 5 times the normal use, while an office may use up to 2.9 times the normal use rate. Responding to questions from Commissioner Stueck, the Director stated that there is no distinction between residential and commercial development for water and wastewater impact fees; rather, those fees are based strictly on the size of the service line and water meter. He indicated that, in the instance of Mr. Heck's home, it could probably be successfully demonstrated that the home will have no more impact on the City's water system than the typical home and, on that basis, the impact fee for a 3/4-inch service line could be assessed. . Commissioner Stueck expressed concern that, since the impact fee is to be assessed on the size of the water meter installed, the water services for commercial buildings currently being oversized to accommodate potential future uses might be downsized as much as possible, to accommodate only current needs. He noted that if the uses then change or expand in the future, it will be necessary to install a new, larger service; and that will cost more money 01-02-96 ----..---.-.-.. -. - _m_.______.____._. - 5 - in the long run. He also questioned whether two impact fees must also be paid in that instance. Director of Public Service Forbes stated that if a new meter is installed, the property owner will be given credit for the impact fee previously paid, and will be responsible only for . the difference in impact fees between the meter originally installed and the new meter size. Responding to questions from the Commission, Planning Director Epple stated that if a building is converted from a warehouse to commercial uses, the conversion is typically picked up at the business licensing step if not before. He noted that, through such reviews, it can be determined if the water meter size will be adequate to accommodate the change in use. Planning Director Andy Epple reviewed the revisions contained in the substitute Page Nos. 9, 11, 16, 17 and 18 for the ordinance, as distributed just prior to the meeting. He noted that the staff's review of the ordinance revealed some typographical errors which have been corrected in the substitute pages. He stated that, also, as a result of pUblic testimony and the work session, staff asked the consultant to review the figures contained in the table for street . impact fees. That review uncovered some minor errors in calculations, which have resulted in the remaining revisions, which were received late on Friday. The Planning Director reviewed the revisions to the fees for streets, noting that the residential fees have remained the same, and the fees for smaller commercial projects vary slightly upward while the fees for larger commercial projects drop slightly. The largest difference is in the fees for institutional developments, with the fees for high schools jumping significantly, the fees for the university jumping even more, and the fees for day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes and churches dropping. He noted that this is due in large part to the fact that the length of the average trip was changed for the University fees. Responding to Commissioner Frost, the Planning Director stated Mr. Duncan has indicated on several occasions that it is more legally defensible to implement impact fees at not . more than 80 percent of the net cost as determined in the impact fee study. This allows an opportunity for implementation of the impact fee program and establishment of baseline data while leaving room to increase those fees if determined necessary. He indicated that implementing the fees at not more than 80 percent also provides a buffer in the event of a legal 01-02-96 ~ 6 - challenge, and can generally alleviate any potential requirement for refunding of the impact fees collected. City Attorney Luwe noted that, based on historic data, the impact fee can be eventually increased to 100 percent of the net costs identified; however, he cautioned that at . least a few years of data should be available before that is done to ensure that the fees are legally defensible. Responding to Commissioner Stueck, the City Attorney stated there is a provision in the ordinance under which overpayments of impact fees due to inaccurate calculations will be refunded. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the Planning Director stated that he has placed a call to MSU to inform them of the increase in the street impact fees; however, he has been unable to talk to them as of meeting time. Commissioner Stiff expressed strong concern about the fact that the street impact fees for the University have been increased 300 percent after the close of the public hearing. He noted the University representatives determined that they would not oppose the impact fees . based on the fees contained in the original documents; and he is concerned that this dramatic increase in fees could impact their position. City Attorney Luwe stated that, since the public hearing on this item was a legislative public hearing, the Commission could choose to accept written and verbal comments for a specific period of time to allow for response to the new fee schedule. He stated that, at this time, there is no need to go through the entire public hearing process again on the ordinance. Commissioner Youngman noted that the fees are to be phased in over a period of time, which allows for people to adjust to the increased costs. She stated that, on that basis, she has less concern about the revised fees, since the initial impact will be relatively minor. Responding to Mayor Vincent, the City Attorney affirmed that the schedule for implementation of fees may be adjusted as determined necessary. He stated that those . revisions must be made by ordinance, with public comment either being received during a public hearing or in conjunction with adoption of the ordinance. Responding to Commissioner Frost, the City Attorney stated that the Commission may revise the ordinance both at this time and at final adoption. He cautioned, however, that those 01-02-96 --.-- ----.-- -.. --.- ____ .___.n_._____.___. ..__ - 7 - revisions must be made in response to the public hearing process, with those revisions typically being made downward, or possibly slightly upward in the percentages of fees assessed. Commissioner Frost stated he feels it is imperative that the Commission take all sides of the issue into consideration when making a decision on the level of impact fees to be . implemented. He noted that a substantial amount of input has been received from the building community and the real estate industry; however, the general taxpayer has been ignored. He stated his interest in establishing fees at a level that is legally defensible if it is challenged; however, he feels that relieving the burden on the general taxpayer must also be a strong factor . He recognized that implementation of impact fees will not lower the burden on taxpayers; however, he expressed his hope that it will eliminate the need for future increases to address infrastructure needs. He stressed the importance of phasing the impact fees, with the fees not exceeding 80 percent until an adequate history has been generated to support increasing the fees to 100 percent of the net costs identified. He emphasized the fact that he has been willing to compromise on the percentage of fees at which the impact fees are implemented, indicating his desire to have the Commissioners meet on a compromise. . Commissioner Youngman stated she is extremely interested in reaching a compromise on the percentage at which impact fees are to be implemented. She expressed concern, however, that not all of the Commissioners seem to share that interest. She stressed the importance of setting the fees at a percentage which all of the Commissioners can support. She noted that the percentages currently proposed are substantially lower than the initial proposal; however, she is willing to compromise further, if necessary, to reach a level upon which all Commissioners can agree. She also proposed that the schedule for implementing increases in the fees be stretched out further, with those fees not exceeding 80 percent in this ordinance. Commissioner Youngman noted that the building industry has repeatedly requested predictability in a variety of ways; and she feels that providing a schedule for increasing of . impact fees in this ordinance provides some of that desired predictability. She recognized that the schedule could be amended before the next steps occurs; however, she noted that people at least have some idea of the intended times for increases in the impact fees. She also noted that with an identified schedule, the next step to be taken if the legislation is unsuccessful will 01-02-96 ____ _.._n.____ - 8 - be set; and that could provide added incentive for the various groups to support the City in its efforts. Commissioner Stueck stated he is not concerned about the financial impacts that the proposed impact fees will have on residential properties; rather, he is concerned about the e impacts of commercial construction, particularly since that is his, as well as his family's, livelihood. He also expressed concern that establishing impact fees at too high a level could drive commercial business, particularly high tech business, outside city limits. He stated that if the Gallatin Development Corporation is courting high tech businesses, the Commission should be careful about adding costs which might discourage those businesses from moving to Bozeman. Commissioner Stueck aCknowledged that he is interested in keeping the impact fees for single-family homes close to the fee which has been proposed for the County, to ensure equitability. He then stated that, while he does not have a problem with implementing impact fees at the level discussed at the December 18 meeting, he is opposed to inclusion of a schedule for increasing those fees. He noted, instead, that he would support adding a . statement of intent in the ordinance which indicates that after fifteen months, if no additional sources of revenue for addressing infrastructure needs have been identified, the Commission intends to revise the schedule. He expressed concern about one Commission adopting a policy which impacts the succeeding Commission, since that new Commission does not know all of the issues and discussions that led to the adoption of the policy. Responding to Commissioner Stueck, City Attorney Luwe cautioned that, while the Commission could set the fire impact fee at 100 percent, it places the City in a less defensible position if challenged. He encouraged the Commission to provide at least a 5 or 10 percent buffer. He then indicated that the Commission could choose to ultimately set the fees for fire at 100 percent of the net costs in the impact fee study while setting the other fees at 80 percent at some time in the future. . Commissioner Frost noted that some of the Commissioners have discussed the idea of adopting a statement of intent to consider methods of providing a mechanism for writing down the impact fee costs for affordable housing projects and economic development projects, under certain circumstances. 01-02-96 - 9 - Commissioner Frost then noted that when the City began the process of adopting the new zone code six years ago, the Commission was cautioned that adopting it would drive commercial development to Great Falls; however, in reality, neither residential nor commercial growth in Bozeman has slowed down because of the new zone code. . Commissioner Frost expressed concern that, under the proposed level of fees, new development will bear 1/3 of the identified costs of development while the general property taxpayer will bear the other 2/3 of those costs. He then stated that, while he is willing to compromise on the initial level of impact fees, he does not believe that taxpayers should be required to bear the cost of special interest groups. Commissioner Stiff noted there has been substantial discussion about how the impact fees will benefit the taxpayer; however, he reminded the Commission that the figures submitted reveal that 2/3 of the new residences are being occupied by people who already live within the city limits. He then expressed concern about the idea of increasing the impact fees immediately after the next legislative session if alternative revenue sources are not provided, particularly since it is not the sole responsibility of the development community to ensure that those . sources are provided by the Legislature. He then reiterated his concern about the new fees for the University. Commissioner Stueck stated that he shares Commissioner Stiff's concerns, particularly in light of the fact that the University is planning on building a green building and a bioscience building in the near future. Commissioner Stueck asked if any other community in Montana has adopted impact fees. He noted that much of the conversation has revolved around the burden of growth on taxpayers; however, all other areas of the state, including the Flathead and Missoula, are encountering the same impacts. Responding to Commissioner Youngman, each of the Commissioners stated support for the implementation of impact fees, and indicated acceptance of initially adopting those fees . at a level of 10 percent for streets, 40 percent for water and wastewater and 80 percent for fire. Commissioner Frost noted that Montana State University pays no property taxes, yet they have 10,000 + students and a significant number of employees who use the City infrastructure on a daily basis. He noted that, through the payment of impact fees, they would 01-02-96 - 10 - be paying a nominal amount for the future expansion of those facilities, as a result of the impacts created by additional improvements on the campus. Mayor Vincent stated he feels it is important to include a schedule for future increases in the impact fees because it provides some predictability. He also noted that it easier to adjust . the numbers that are contained in an ordinance than to establish those figures at a later date. Also, a schedule provides a tangible set of numbers and dates for everyone involved. He believes that the impact fees should eventually be set at 100 percent, since the impacts on taxpayers and the infrastructure are actually at that level. Commissioner Stueck reiterated that, while he supports the level at which the impact fees are being implemented, he cannot support adoption of a fee schedule. It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 1414, implementing impact fees for City streets, fire, water and wastewater services, on first reading, with the following revisions: (1) those submitted on the substitute pages just prior to the meeting; (2) the street impact fee be adopted at 10 percent, with the schedule revised to provide for an increase to 25 percent on . May 1, 1997, to 50 percent on May 1, 1998, and to 80 percent on May 1, 1999; (3) the fire impact fee be adopted at 95 percent, with an increase to 100 percent on May 1, 1998; and (4) the water and wastewater impact fees to be adopted at 40 percent, with the schedule revised to provide for an increase to 50 percent on May', 1997, and to 80 percent on May " 1998/ and that it be brought back in three weeks for final adoption. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Vincent; those voting No being Commissioner Stueck and Commissioner Stiff. Development of statement of intent re impact fees for affordable housina proiects and economic development . Commissioner Youngman stated that she has prepared a revised statement of intent, dated January 1/ 1996, based on comments which she has received from individual Commissioners. She reviewed the provisions of that statement, noting that it includes establishment of a committee to pursue funding mechanisms, through the Legislature, for addressing the costs related to growth; development of an economic development policy and 01-02-96 . -.------.--.-- - 11 - modification of the affordable housing policy to enable mitigating of the effects of impact fees on high priority development in those areas; and determination on whether the City should take a proactive role in supporting economic development. Commissioner Stiff stated he feels it would be appropriate to defer discussion and . action on this proposal until after the new Commission has been seated. Commissioner Youngman stated that she is comfortable with that suggestion, as long as the discussion is deferred to a time specific in the near future that relates to final adoption of the impact fee ordinance. Commissioner Stueck stated that he and City Manager Wysocki have discussed the urgency of establishing a committee to work on legislative proposals and ensure a commitment to lobby the upcoming Legislature. He noted that groups to be represented include the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association, developers, Downtown Bozeman Association, Chamber of Commerce, Gallatin Development Corporation, engineers, legislators, City Commission and City staff. Mayor Vincent suggested citizens be included on that committee as well; . Commissioner Youngman agreed. Commissioner Stiff forwarded his discomfort with developing any type of statement pertaining to affordable housing in conjunction with adoption of the impact fee ordinance. It was moved by Commissioner Stueck, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that this item be tabled until after final adoption of Ordinance No. 1414 on January 22, 1996. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Vincent; those voting No. none. Discussion - FYI Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your . Information" items. (1 ) Notice of Special Meeting for the reorganization meeting, set for 10:00 a.m. on Monday, January 8, 1996. (2) Memo from Planning Secretary Carol Schott, dated December 21, 01 ~02-96 - 12 - announcing that no Development Review Committee meetings are scheduled for December 26, 1995, or January 2, 1996. (3) Agenda for the County Commission meeting which was held at 1 :30 p.m. today at the Courthouse. . (4) Agenda for the County Commission meeting which was held at 1 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 26, at the Courthouse. (5) Agenda for the Montana Transportation Commission meeting scheduled for January 4 and 5, 1996, in Helena. (6) The City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. ( 1) Noted that the new snowfall has resulted in shoveling once again. (2) Stated that tree trimming has been stopped because of the weather, with only a few blocks on the west side of South Willson Avenue yet to be done. (3) Noted that New Year's Day weekend was relatively quiet, according to the Police Department. (4) Met with the Fire Department regarding capital needs. (7) Commissioner Stueck submitted the following. (1) Stated that he has asked to have a discussion about procedural items placed on the agenda for the January 16 work . session. He noted that Commissioner Youngman has also requested refresher discussions on motions and decisions on land use issues. (2) Stated that he has been working with the Clerk on revising the job description for her job and developing a job description for the new person to be hired in that office. (3) Stated that he has forwarded the seating arrangement for the new Commission to the Clerk, after having discussed it with each of the Commissioners. (8) The City Manager distributed copies of information from the drug task force, reflecting the number of task force arrests made. (9) Mayor Vincent submitted the following. (1) Cited the costs that he has encountered in constructing a new home outside city limits. He noted that the costs of building include a well, septic system, driveway, propane tank, and trenching for telephone and power at an estimated cost of $10,000 plus additional on-going expenses for garbage, transportation, . and heating at an estimated $79 per month. (2) Noted that the past four years have been a humbling experience; and he has appreciated the opportunity to serve on the Commission. Executive session re Dersonnel - evaluation of City Manager City Manager Wysocki stated he does not wish to waive his right to privacy, but 01 ~02~96 _u___ ,._ .----."'. --=-=-"'. - .... - 13 - requested that the Commission conduct his evaluation in executive session. Mayor Vincent announced that, pursuant to Montana state law (Section 2-3-203[3], M.C.A.), the Montana Constitution and the Montana Supreme Court rulings, he, as presiding officer, has determined that the right to privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure. . He indicated that, following the evaluation, he will provide a copy of the blank evaluation form, a composite evaluation score, and a summary of the evaluation to the press. Ms. Gail Schontzler, reporter for the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, stated her objections to closing of the meeting. She noted that selection of the City Manager is one of the most important decisions that any Commission makes; and she feels that evaluation of the public performance of his public duties should be open to the public. She noted that openness increases the accountability of government, stating that government "operates best in the light of day." She forwarded her feeling that the Supreme Court in the Missoula case was improper and that the Court will soon recognize the error. Break. 4:40 to 4:47 p.m. . Mayor Vincent declared a break from 4:40 p.m. to 4:47 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Executive session re personnel (continued) - evaluation of City Manager At 4:47 p.m., Mayor Vincent called an executive session for the purpose of evaluating the City Manager and requested that all persons except the Commissioners, City Manager and Clerk leave the room. At 5:50 p.m., Mayor Vincent closed the executive session and reconvened the open meeting. Adiournment - 5:50 D.m. . There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stueck, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stueck, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Youngman and Mayor Vincent; those voting No, none. 01-02-96 -- - 14 - ATTEST: .9LJ~ ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission . . 01-02-96 ____n.. -- -