Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-25 ccm ._--- ~_ ._--.;;.;;;:c;,~"-~-~ '~ -. -,_. r'_- ,..r-' "~' . . . MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA October 25, 1993 ***************************** . The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room. Municipal Building, October 25, 1993, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, 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. None of the Commissioners requested that any of the Consent Items be removed for discussion. Minutes - October 4 and October 18, 1993 It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the minutes of the regular meetings of October 4 and October 18, 1993, be approved as amended. The motion .carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. Decision - aDDlication for Tax Abatement Proaram for Historic ProDerties and Historic Districts - restoration of former Ardice Lvon residence. 715 South 3rd Avenue - Sam and Amv Anderson City Manager Wysocki noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, was a memo from Historic Preservation Officer Derek Strahn, dated October 19, 1993. Historic Preservation Officer Derek Strahn reviewed the contents of the memo, noting that it addresses several of the issues raised by the Commission during their consideration of this item at the October 12 meeting. He stated that he and Assistant City Manager Brey met with County .ppraiser Ty Typolt to review the tax abatement program and how to best determine the specific amount of the abatement to be granted. He noted that during that meeting, Mr. Typolt realized that with the current computerized market value appraisal system, he is unable to determine what impacts an historic preservation project may have on the valuation of the property. He stated that the current valuation system is based on a comparison of the subject property with similar 10-25-93 " - 2 - properties in the city which have recently been sold. He stated those comparisons consider only the property as a total, and not any of the individual components. Officer Strahn stated that the current property valuation process makes it very difficult to generate a percentage of increased valuation resulting from a specific project, as opposed to a egeneriC increase in value. He suggested that, because of those difficulties, it may be more appropriate to consider the amount for which the building permit was drawn, using that as the basis for establishing a tax abatement. He noted that in this specific instance, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson drew a building permit for $30,000; and Mr. Typolt and Ms. Arletta Derleth, County Assessor, concur it is inconceivable that those improvements did not result in an increase in valuation. Officer Strahn stated that, as a result of the discussions, County Appraiser Typolt and County Assessor Derleth have indicated support for the following method of determining tax abatement as a result of an historic preservation project. He suggested that, since this application was filed in good faith and since the project has resulted in an "excellent rehabilitation", the tax abatement be based on the amount of the building permit. He stated that the State statutes .stiPulate that the State and County mill levies don't qualify for local tax abatement; therefore, only the City and School District mill levies are subject to the abatement. He noted that the total qualifying mills is 244.82, multiplied by the total taxable increase of $977.39, provides an annual abatement of $239.28 for each of the next five years. He stated this represents 19.8 percent of the total tax burden which Andersons would incur for 1993. He then stated the County Assessor has indicated that the abatement, if approved, will become effective in 1994. Historic Preservation Officer Strahn reiterated his position that the Andersons submitted their application in good faith and that the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission also reviewed the application and recommended approval in good faith. He noted, however, that he also recognizes the problems of implementing the program because of the new method of establishing market value and recommended that the resolution for the program be revised to create an eqUitable system of calculating the tax abatement. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Officer Strahn stated that he and Assistant City Manager Brey have discussed the possibility of placing a cap on the amount of tax abatement possible. He noted that under the current program, an applicant is eligible for an abatement of 100 percent of the increase in taxable value for a five-year period. He noted an option would be to cap 10-25-93 - - 3 - the abatement at a specific percentage of what is thought to be the increase in taxable value, since there is no way to precisely determine that amount. He stated another change might be to allow an individual to apply for the tax abatement before the work is begun, so that the abatement can be granted for the construction period as well. He noted that at the present time, the application _s filed after the work is completed, so the Historic Preservation Advisory Board can readily review the project to determine if it is truly an enhancement of an historic property. Commissioner Stiff stated he feels that staff has done "an excellent job of addressing the problem" . He noted the applicants entered into the process in good faith, and that the staff has provided a equitable solution. Commissioner Vincent asked if any legislative action during the special session might impact the Commission's decision on this application. Historic Preservation Officer Strahn stated it is possible that legislative action could impact this program. He noted that this issue was discussed during the meeting with the County Appraiser and Assessor; and Assessor Derleth indicated that she could review and adjust the abatement if she were given the authority to do so by the City Commission and if she were .provided with the formula for how the initial abatement was determined. Responding to Commissioner Knapp, Officer Strahn stated that the total mills levied for the State, County, City and School District is 395 and, after subtracting the mills levied for the State and the County, per statutory requirement, the remainder is 244.82 mills. Responding to Mayor Swanson, City Manager Wysocki recommended that the Commission take action on this application now. He noted that future applications can be considered under the revamped program. Historic Preservation Officer Strahn concurred. He noted that Mr. and Mrs. Anderson filed their application for tax abatement in October 1992; and it has taken a full year to process the application. He stated this is the only application that has been before the Commission for this program and is, therefore, the only one which will be acted on under the current resolution. He .loted that revising the method of calculating the tax abatement can be then addressed before any additional applications are processed. Commissioner Frost stated he feels this project has resulted in nice improvements to an old house, which has also added to the neighborhood. Commissioner Vincent asked if the Commission will have the flexibility to review this 10-25-93 - __..."._.__n ...__.._.... ------.".---.-..---.-----.-..- . ---..---------- ~ 4 ~ application on an annual basis, particularly in light of potential legislative changes. He then noted that at last week's meeting, it was noted that relatively new homes within an historic district would qualify under this program. He asked if older homes outside the district with historic value could qualify for the program. . Officer Strahn responded he will research the possibility of incorporating the conservation { overlay districts into the program, noting that would include the older homes with historic value outside a registered historic district. Commissioner Knapp noted this application was filed under the current laws and should be acted on under those laws. She then asked if the Commission's action under the current law will stand for the duration of the approval, even if the law changes. City Attorney Luwe responded that, unless a law is made retroactive, the action under an existing law will stand, even if the law is later changed. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Vincent, that the Commission approve the tax abatement as requested by Sam and Amy Anderson for the property at 715 South Third Avenue, for a five-year period, as outlined in the staff memo dated October 19, .1993. The following substitute motion was then placed on the floor: It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the Commission approve the tax abatement as requested by Sam and Amy Anderson for the property at 715 South Third Avenue, with that abatement to be reviewed on an annual basis over the next five-year period. The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vincent, those voting No being Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson. The motion on the original motion then carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. . Work session with County Commissioners: (a) water Quality district; (b) home health Drogram and disposal of DroDerty (b) Home health program and disposal of property. Gallatin County Health Officer Jackie Stonnell reminded the Commission that the City- 10-25-93 -.-.-- ...-- , ' - 5 - County Health Department is operated under an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County. She stated that the Gallatin County Home Health agency within the department has had fewer and fewer patients over the past eight years; and the Board is considering closure of that unit. She stated that eight years ago, two other agencies in the community received certificates _I need; and those agencies operate similar services out 01 the Hospital and through the Gallatin Home Health Agency. She noted that the Hospital is the logical entity to operate such an agency, since home health care is most often needed by those who are just leaving the hospital. She also noted that the paperwork associated with the program is becoming more costly and complicated to process. Health Officer Stonnell stated that, based on these factors, the Board voted in June to close the home health agency. Since that time, several agencies have expressed an interest in applying for the license which the City-County Health Board currently holds; and that license may be sold as well as the equipment which is associated with the program. She estimated the value of these assets at less than $2,500. She stated that the County Attorney's office has cautioned that the statutes governing the disposal of properties differ for the City and the County; and the .nterlocal Agreement needs to be revised to accommodate disposal in the manner which the Board has recommended. Responding to Mayor Swanson, Health Officer Stonnell stated that the County Commission has already acted on an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, which is now being forwarded to the City Commission. Mr. Gerry Higgins, Deputy County Attorney, noted that Section 7 of the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County does address the "manner of acquiring, holding and disposing of real and personal property"; however, it is a generically written section that does not address the differences in State statutes. He stated that at its October 12 meeting, the County Commission approved a second paragraph for that section which states: If the property to be sold is reasonably of a value of less than $2,500, the sale . may be either public or private at the discretion of the Board. If the property to be sold is reasonably of a value of more than $2,500, the sale must be public. The Deputy County Attorney stated that this language is based on the State statutes governing the County's disposal of assets, and suggested that the City could agree to this language in the Interlocal Agreement. 10-25-93 - 6 - City Attorney Luwe noted that under Section 7-5-4307, Montana Code Annotated, the City must sell all equipment and supplies to the highest responsible bidder in a public bidding process. He stated that, since the Interlocal Agreement as written is silent on the issue, it is difficult to know which section of the State statutes would prevail. . Health Officer Stonnell reviewed her recommendation for disposal of the assets. She stated that she has drafted a request for proposals, noting that an advertisement will be placed in the newspaper, soliciting proposals. The proposals will be reviewed and assessed, with the ability to provide the needed services and the amount to be paid being two of the issues taken into consideration. She indicated that the sale would then be made to the agency determined to have the ability to provide the best service. Following discussion on possible methods of disposing of the property for the home health program, it was determined that the assets could be retained in joint ownership, with the necessary changes being made to the Interlocal Agreement. Responding to Mayor Swanson, Officer Stonnell reviewed the differences between a pUblic and a private sale. She then emphasized the fact that the Board is not proposing a private sale, .but is proposing that the public process be utilized even though the value is estimated at less than $2,500. It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the Commission concur in the following amendment to Section 7 of the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County for the City-County Board of Health, dated June 1990: If the property to be sold is reasonably of a value of less than $2,500, the sale may be either public or private at the discretion of the Board. If the property to be sold is reasonably of a value of more than $2,500, the sale must be public. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. (a) Water quality district. . Mayor Swanson reminded the Commission that $22,000 has been budgeted for hiring of a person through the County to lay the groundwork for possible creation of a water quality district. He stated that the County applied for, and received, a $12,500 grant from the State of Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for this project. He indicated that Mr. Justin Buchanan, who was a County Sanitarian, has been hired to lay the groundwork. 10-25-93 .___. _u _..__.m -------..---.. .7. The Mayor stated that on August 25, a steering committee comprised of individuals from the City and the County, met to identify what they feel are the primary goals for this program. He noted the goals forwarded by Director of Public Service Forbes include storm drainage for the streets and private property, watershed protection for the City's supply, effects of development eon the sanitary sewer system, i.e., the Bozeman Solvent Site. County Commissioner Jane Jelinski forwarded data collection, protection of water quality and water quantity, wellhead protection, and agricultural degradation. Mr. Buchanan noted the cumulative effects of growth, impacts of the disposal of household hazardous wastes on water quality, and an extensive educational program. Mr. Dale Johnson, Director of Environmental Health, raised the issue of growth, and the stress it puts on aquifers. The Mayor then stated that the Director of the Lewis and Clark County district stressed the importance of making sure that the district does not result in a duplication of services or add another layer of bureaucracy, but that it helps to provide practical solutions to problems that arise. Mr. Justin Buchanan stated that the 1991 Legislature adopted legislation authorizing the creation of water quality districts at the County level; and that Lewis and Clark County and .Missoula County have already done so. He reviewed the provisions of that legislation and how a district is to be created, noting that a municipality may choose whether or not to be included within the district. He stated that the purpose of the district is to "protect, preserve, and improve the quality of surface water and ground water." He noted that people now recognize that it is cheaper to protect a water source than it is to clean one up, citing the Bozeman Solvent Site and the Idaho Pole Site as local examples. Mr. Buchanan distributed a proposed timeline for creation of a water quality district. He stated that, in the meantime, a task force comprised of members of the City, the County and the City.County Health Board has been formed, and a steering committee comprised of 25 to 30 people from varying backgrounds and interests, including one representative from each of the incorporated cities and towns involved, will be formed to forward concerns and help to provide input into the .ormation of a district. He forwarded his perception that the district should be a data collection agency, and serve as a centralized point for information. He noted that education should be an important part of the program; and he suggested that the district could possibly join the City in the household hazardous waste program, thus providing an outlet for those wastes that might otherwise be improperly disposed through the septic system. 10.25-93 .- .....-- .... -.--.-.----.... - - 8 - Mr. Buchanan stated that the annual fees in Lewis and Clark are $5 per household; and in Missoula County they are $13 per household. Mr. Justin Buchanan stated that a program will be written specifically for each municipality in the district as well as a program for the County. He noted those programs will be tailored to fit _he specific needs of each area. Health Officer Jackie Stonnell stated there has been a lot of support for a water quality district, noting that people in the rural areas are generally very supportive. Responding to Mayor Swanson, Mr. Buchanan stated one of the recurring comments is that we don't know the extent of our resources. He also noted the need for a centralized data base collection center, which contains information on both the water quality and the water quantity in a specific area. He noted that Gallatin County has one of the highest growth rates in the State; and it is important to address the issues before problems resulting from growth are encountered. Responding to Commissioner Knapp, Mr. Buchanan stated there is a public protest period in the creation process. He stated that if 20 percent or more protest, then it must go to a public vote. He then indicated that the creation of a district must be initiated by the County Commission .under the current statutes. Responding to Commissioner Vincent, Mr. Buchanan stated that a water quality district board is appointed by the County Commission. He indicated that the board is to include representation from each City Commission involved as well as the County Commission; and there are to be a minimum of five members on the board. He then stated that after the program is developed, it must be sent to the State of Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, to ensure that it does not conflict with any of their rules. He then indicated that education is extremely important. He also suggested that the district could possibly provide some expertise and assistance to meet Montana's degradation laws, which are very strict. Commissioner Vincent noted the importance of ensuring that the creation of a water quality district does not result in more bureaucracy, particularly in light of the current attitude about .overnment in general. He stated that if the district can be beneficial and reflect "better government" instead of "more government", he feels it could be more acceptable. He forwarded his general support for the concept, noting that if the office can provide accurate information regarding the Quality and Quantity of water in an area, that would be beneficial to the governing bodies when considering applications for development. 10-25-93 ---------- ---.-----" ....- ---. .-.-"..-.-..-. - 9 - Mayor Swanson characterized the Lewis and Clark County water quality district as a prevention and educational program and the Missoula County district as a regulatory program, noting that each is a model program in its category. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Mr. Buchanan stated that, while a water quality .district can be either of the above-described programs or a combination of them, he envisions that a Gallatin County district could be an educational and prevention program. County Commissioner Kris Dunn noted that when she sat on the City-County Planning Board, she recognized the difficulty of making decisions on development projects because of the uncertainty of water quantity or quality. She forwarded her feeling that the creation of a district could be possible for the entire county. County Commission Chair Dave Pruitt stated there are specific areas of the County about which the County Commissioners are concerned, given the number of wells and septic systems within a relatively small area. He noted the creation of a water quality district would definitely help to address the issues of groundwater quality. Mr. Terry Hofer asked about nitrates and how they affect soils in the rural areas. . Mr. Justin Buchanan responded to those questions, indicating that higher levels in the water supply generally result from higher usages of hydrogen fertilizer. Health Officer Stonnell stated her support for the creation of a water quality district, stating she feels the questions and concerns raised during this discussion can be appropriately answered as the process evolves. County landfill. County Commission Chair Pruitt then asked if the City plans to continue operating its landfill. He indicated that if the City plans to continue the operation of its landfill for several years, the County may entertain a request from another County that is encountering problems. City Manager Wysocki responded that the City will continue to operate its landfill for the next several years. . The City Commission thanked the County Commissioners for attending and participating in this work session. Break - 4:58 to 5:05 p.m. Mayor Swanson declared a break from 4:58 p.m. to 5:05 p.m., in accordance with 10-25-93 . -..-. .---. -.------- - - ---.- .-.-----.--. - 10 - Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Continued cublic hearing - Commission Resolution No. 2942 - levvina and assessing creliminarv assessments on Scecial Imcrovement District No. 656 (water main in Burruc Annexation) - $392.000 . This was the time and place for the continued pUblic hearing on Commission Resolution No. 2942, as approved by the City Attorney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2942 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, LEVYING AND ASSESSING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF TAXES UPON ALL BENEFITED PROPERTY IN SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 656 IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, COUNTY OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA, TO DEFRAY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING AND MAKING THE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN SAID SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 656 Mayor Swanson reopened the continued public hearing. He then issued a statement indicating that he has a conflict of interest because he has purchased one of the bonds for this special improvement district. He noted that discussions with the City Attorney have confirmed that the SID process is a three-stage process including the creation and formation, the bonding and construction phase and, finally, the assessment phase. He stated that since he has purchased a .ond during phase two of the process, he is now excusing himself from the meeting and yielding the gavel to Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent. Upon yielding the gavel, he left the Commission Room for the remainder of the meeting. City Manager Wysocki stated that, included in the Commissioners' packets, was a memo from him dated October 20, along with a memo from City Attorney Luwe, dated October 19, in response to Mr. Ganser's written statement. City Attorney Luwe reviewed the contents of his memo. He noted the first portion of his memo outlines the three phases of the SID process, reminding the Commission that this is the third phase. He stated that many of the arguments forwarded by Mr. Ganser would be appropriately considered in the formation phase, but not at this phase. He cautioned the Commissioners that at .hiS time, they have an obligation to the bondholders, which must be satisfied by the assessment process. He noted that any reduction in the assessments because of a decision to change the method of assessment or boundaries of the district will result in the potential for the City to pay the difference out of its General Fund. He then forwarded alternatives to that option, including a recommendation that if the Commission wishes to consider a change, they adopt this resolution 10-25-93 ---- --...- ---- - 11 - as submitted and take separate action at a later date and a suggestion that the City could pay the assessments on Mr. Ganser's property until such time as he or subsequent owners wish to tap into the water main. He noted that Mr. Ganser's presentation seems to indicate he no longer favors the latter option; and the City Manager has previously indicated he does not support the option. . City Manager Wysocki entered into the record letters of support from Donald S. Thiesen, owner of Sunrise Campground and Courtesy Body Shop, and Dan Kamp, Kamp/Vandermolen Investments. Mr. Neal Ganser distributed copies of excerpts from the State statutes, referencing Sections 7-12-4161, 7-12-4162, 7-12-4185 and 7.12-4186. He then addressed some of the comments contained in City Manager Wysocki's memo and City Attorney Luwe's memo. He stated concurrence with the first statement in the second paragraph of the City Manager's memo, noting he feels a $32,000 assessment to provide water service to a residence is unreasonable. He reminded the Commission that he had previously indicated his willingness to accept an SID assessment on his M-1 zoned property without prejudice; however, he noted his continued opposition to having the R-Q zoned portion of his property included. He reminded the Commission .that the R-Q zoned property contains his residence and his back yard, emphasizing the fact that he has no plans for future development of the site. Mr. Ganser reminded the Commission that this property was annexed into the city as a residential use. He stated that during the planning process, the property was changed to an M-1 zoning. He indicated that, after that change was discovered, he joined with the property owner to the east to seek rezoning to protect his property from being in the middle of an M-1 zone. Mr. Ganser stated he does not disagree that the assessment of the district must conform with the resolution creating the district, which is on a square footage basis; however, he suggested that Section 7-12-4186 provides for relevying an assessment to correct an error. He stated the Commission was in a hurry to pass the resolution to create the district because of the new ILX Lightwave building; and they are now in a hurry to adopt the resolution of assessment. He .uggested that the Commission should consider the options available to them prior to levying the assessments. Mr. Ganser then addressed the City Attorney's memo. He stated that in that memo, the City Attorney suggests that the Commission cannot change the levy at this time; however, he feels that the statutes do provide that option so they can correct an error. He stated he is not aware 10-25-93 ------.-.- .-------.----- --- _n.. __ _ _. .. _ _ - 12 - of any section of the statutes that would allow for the City to pay a portion of the assessment until a tap into the water main is requested. Mr. Ganser concluded his statement by reiterating his willingness to pay assessments on his M-1 zoned property; however, he cannot accept a $32,000 assessment against his home. . Mr. Chris Ragar, attorney, indicated that he and Mr. Greg Morgan are representing Mr. Ganser on this issue. He stated the fundamental rule in assessing a special improvement district is that the assessments must be in proportion to the benefit that the owner receives. He noted the statutes recognize that some properties within a district may receive a greater benefit; and the assessments should be apportioned based on that benefit. He forwarded his argument that Mr. Ganser's property is not benefited as greatly as some of the other properties in the district; therefore, his assessment should be proportionately less. He noted Mr. Ganser's property is served by two wells, one producing 70 gallons per minute and the other producing 20 gallons per minute. Mr. Ragar stated the second factor to be considered is that the road frontage of this lot is fully developed, with no access to the rear of the lot for further development. He also noted that commercial development is typically located along a road frontage, as opposed to an area that is enot read ily visible from the road. He stated that those lots which currently have vacant lot frontage will receive a greater benefit from this special improvement district than Mr. Ganser's property will. Mr. Ragar stated his position that to anticipate any type of development on the currently undeveloped portion of Mr. Ganser's property is unrealistic. He emphasized the fact that there is no access to the rear of the property at this time; and that there is really not adequate space to install an access because of the current development. He also stated that, because of the water supply from the existing wells on the property, Mr. Ganser has no need to tie into the City's water system. He stated that, in his opinion, the SID will provide four or five times as great a benefit to the other properties than it does to his client's. Mr. Ragar stated he has reviewed the City Manager's memo of October 20 and the City Attorney's memo of October 19. He stated that, while he understands the City's analysis and .osition, he feels that the assessment is based on a faulty premise which has led to a faulty assessment. He stated the faulty premise is that Mr. Ganser's property will theoretically be benefited to the same extent as the other properties. He stated that to receive this benefit, Mr. Ganser would have to either move or demolish his house, his garage and his barn and replace them with commercial development. He noted staff's position that the assessment is based on the 10-25-93 - 13 - fullest development potential, by Mr. Ganser or a future property owner; however, he noted Mr. Ganser has repeatedly forwarded his position that he does not plan any development of the back portion of his lot. Mr. Ragar stated that a review of cases revealed few which pertain to this type of .situation. He noted, however. that a disproportionate number of the Montana Supreme Court cases he did find involve the City of Bozeman. He then cited two cases which he feels are applicable. The first was the U.S. Supreme Court case, Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Road Improvement District, 266 US 379, which essentially says that the benefit which a special improvement district assessment is based on cannot be speculative or conjectural. The second was an Oklahoma case, Lawton v. Akers, 333 P.2d 520, which essentially says that if the benefit of an SID assessment depends on converting residential to business and removing plat restrictions, the benefit is too remote. He stated that in this instance, Mr. Ganser has resided on this property for fifteen years; and that fact cannot be disregarded on the assumption that he will vacate the use. Mr. Ragar stated the City cannot coerce someone to demolish his residence to get the benefit for which he is being taxed. He stated that the assessments proposed will cause Mr. . Ganser to lose--either because he will need to demolish his residence or because he will have to pay a disproportionate assessment to remain there. Mr. Chris Ragar then encouraged the Commission to recognize its mistake and to address it in this assessment process. He briefly reviewed the statutes which Mr. Ganser had distributed to the Commission during his presentation, citing the statutory authority under which the City may relevya district to correct an error. Attorney Ragar noted that the ILX Lightwave development is a large one which will benefit dramatically from this water main. He further noted that the City is receiving payments from a Community Development Block Grant loan to ILX Lighwave, suggesting that the City may have a conflict of interest in this process. He then encouraged the Commission to equitably and properly impose the assessments for this special improvement district. . It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the public hearing be closed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent closed the public hearing. 10-25-93 - -..-- ------------ - 14 - Commissioner Frost noted four questions have been raised regarding the legal process pertaining to: (1) conflict of interest, (2) whether the district can be reassessed at this time, (3) whether assessments for an SID can be based on potential development and (4) two court cases cited. He then asked for legal response to some or all of those questions. . City Attorney Luwe stated he disagrees with the statement that the Commission can reassess a district by imposing additional assessments on district property at a later date. He noted that to do so would result in changing the total assessments to all of the property owners within the district beyond what is stated in the resolution of intent and without the benefit of a public hearing; and that could serve to circumvent the process at any time that someone challenges the validity of an assessment. He stated that during the creation and formation phase is the time to set the method of assessment. He noted that if the Commission subsequently determines that the method of assessment was improper, then it can address the issue through one of the alternatives forwarded in his memo. He then addressed the conflict of interest issue, stating he does not agree with Mr. Ragar's argument. He noted that if that were the case, the Commission would never be able to impose a special improvement district in an area that included such properties (subject to .a loan through one of the City's economic development or rehabilitation programs). City Attorney Luwe then reminded the Commission that it is the property which is benefited by the improvements, not the property owner. He stated, as such, the Commission may appropriately consider the zoning of the property and its reasonable development potential. He then stated he is not familiar with the cases cited by Mr. Ragar. At Commissioner Vincent's request, the City Attorney reviewed the two alternatives he has identified as options for consideration. He reiterated that these options may be considered at a later date, after the Commission finally adopts this resolution of assessment. Break - 5:55 to 5:59 p.m. Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent declared a break from 5:55 p.m. to 5:59 p.m., in compliance ewith Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Continued Dublic hearing (continued) - Commission Resolution No. 2942 - levving and assessing Dreliminarv assessments on 50ecial Improvement District No. 656 (water main in BurruD Annexation) - $392.000 City Attorney Luwe stated one of the concerns raised by the Commissioners is whether 10-25-93 " ~ 15 - the Commission can still consider the arguments raised by Mr. Ganser and his attorney if this resolution is adopted. He forwarded his opinion that the Commission can consider those issues even after the resolution is finally adopted. He then forwarded his recommendation that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 2942 at this time, and direct the staff to e'eview and identify possible alternatives for consideration by the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the Commission finally adopt Commission Resolution No. 2942, levying and assessing preliminary assessments on Special Improvement District No. 656, and direct staff to explore possible alternatives for assessment of the district, with a report to be submitted to the Commission as soon as possible. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. Discussion - FYI Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following "For Your Information" .items. (1 ) Letter from the Montana Chamber of Commerce announcing the Montana Business Agenda meeting scheduled for 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 27, at the Holiday Inn. (2) Letter from Chandler Dayton, Northeast Neighborhood Alliance, dated October 18, to the City Attorney regarding Karst Stage. (3) Copy of the newly-adopted sign code, dated October 16, 1993. (4) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 26, at the Carnegie Building. (5) Agenda for the Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, at the Carnegie Building. . (6) Agenda for the Board of Adjustment to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on Thursday, October 28, in the Commission Room. (7) Agenda for the County Commission meeting to be held at 1 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, at the Courthouse, along with daily minutes for the week of October 10, 1993. 10-25-93 . "-.. " . -.. -- ---..-..----- .. . - 16 - (8) The City Manager submitted his weekly report, as follows. (1) Announced that leaf pick-up will begin tomorrow morning, beginning in the southeast quadrant; and it will take approximately three weeks to cover the community. (2) Stated that he accepted a hearing disability as a part of last week's program to raise awareness about disabilities, indicating he had _pproximatelY one-third of his hearing for the day. He reviewed his thoughts and feelings after that cay, and the awareness that it created for those who work around him. (3) Attended the Chamber of Commerce Banquet for Excellence last week. He noted with interest that the students did not always choose an instructor from their major field for an award. He stated that awards for Businessman and Businesswoman of the Year were also made. (4) Stated that the number of firms being considered for the landfill groundwater monitoring has been reduced from fifteen to three. (5) Stated that Assistant City Manager Brey attended the meeting with various persons regarding improvements to North 7th Avenue. He noted the group intends to develop plans and then discuss their ideas with the State Department of Transportation before the end of the year. (6) Stated that representatives from the Chambers of Commerce in Bozeman, Belgrade, Three Forks and Manhattan attended a retreat at the new Madison River Conference Center. . (9) Commissioner Knapp submitted the following. (1) Participated in interviews for landfill groundwater monitoring, noting two interviews were conducted last week; and one is scheduled for tomorrow. (2) Stated she worked on sign-ups for the Night of 100 Dinners on Thursday evening. (3) Noted that on Friday evening, her husband was crossing Main Street, in the crosswalk, with the light, when a car made bodily contact with him. (4) Reminded the Commission that she will be absent from next week's Commission meeting. (10) Commissioner Frost stated that he attended the meeting on improvement of North 7th Avenue last week, characterizing it as a positive meeting. (11 ) City Attorney Luwe announced that he will be reviewing the Supreme Court ruling on the Missoula parking district, and then reviewing Bozeman's enabling legislation and current situation, later this week. . The City Manager stated he was approached by someone from MSU who wanted a Commissioner to discuss this issue at a meeting on Friday. The Commissioners indicated they were not in a position to speak on the issue until after the City Attorney has conducted his review and forwarded his comments. They then asked if 10-25-93 .-----.... -.. --.. --... ~..;-- ----~_.._--_.._...__._-- .--.. " . - 17 - Assistant City Manager Brey would be willing to participate in the discussion if he is comfortable with the review process that has been conducted to that point. ( 12) Clerk of the Commission Sullivan submitted the following. (1) Briefly reviewed next week's agenda, noting the afternoon session is light; but several public hearings are scheduled .for the evening. (2) Stated she and the City Attorney are updating the compilation of specific sections of the State statutes in preparation for an orientation session for new Commissioners. ( 13) Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent submitted the following. (1) Stated he was to assume a disability this past week, but was unable to do so because he went to Seattle for the week to assist his handicapped father. (2) Stated that voters in Oregon will be voting on a sales tax in that state, with all indications suggesting that it will fail. (3) Highlighted an article on Initiatives 601 and 602 in Washington. He noted the drastic ramifications of those initiatives, including requirements for a super-majority of votes in the Legislature to set new taxes; a two-year sunset provision for any new state tax; and voter ratification of any tax increase before it can become effective. He noted the lack of trust in government, particularly at the federal and state levels, and the filtering down of that lack of trust to the local levels. . Consent Items City Manager Wysocki presented to the Commission the following Consent Items. Commission Resolution No. 2944 - authorizing the City's oarticioation in recertification in the Montana Certified Cities Program and desianatina the Gallatin Develooment Corooration as the soonsoring oraanization COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2944 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN RECERTIFICATION IN THE MONTANA CERTIFIED CITIES PROGRAM AND DESIGNATING THE GALLATIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AS THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION. Commission Resolution No. 2945 - authorizing for Land and Water Conservation Fund monies in the amount of $32.005 for develooment of Westlake Park . COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2945 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONT ANA, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ASSISTANCE. Acknowledae receiot of aoolication for annexation - David and Elizabeth McKenzie - 1.0-acre tract located in the SWY-4. Section 13. T2S. R5E. M PM ( 1 517 Willow Way); refer to staff 10-25-93 -..'.~~ ~'~->. --.- .~. ~ ). . .~.... - 18 - Acknowledge receipt of acclication - Thomas C. and Sue Ann Hagaerty. 3104 West Babcock Street - 4.0-acre tract described as the west 132 feet of the E%. NW% .SW%. Section 2. T2S. R5E. MPM (3104 West Babcock Street); refer to staff Authorize absence of Commissioner Frost from meetina of November 8. 1993. in comcliance with Section 7-3-4322(2), M.C.A. . Claims It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the Commission approve the Consent Items as listed, and authorize and direct the appropriate persons to complete the necessary actions. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. Adjournment - 6:25 c.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Knapp, .commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Pro Tempore Vincent; those voting No, none. ~~o~~~-' ATTEST: ~ J~ ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission . 10-25-93 ....___.. .n_