Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-06Page 1 06-26-2006 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA June 26, 2006 ***************************** The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in special session in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, on Monday, June 26, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Jeff Krauss, Cr. Sean Becker, Cr. Jeff Rupp, Cr. Steve Kirchhoff, City Manager Chris Kukulski, Assistant City Manager Ron Mr. Mr. Brey, Director of Public Service Debra Arkell, Planning Director Andy Epple, Finance Director Anna Rosenberry, City Attorney Paul City Attorney Luwe, and City Clerk Brit Fontenot. Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. City Manager Kukulski noted that Item I-2: Resolution 3927, Proposed Various Changes to Solid Waste Rates, will be opened and continued due to a noticing error. Public Service Announcement Sarah Folger, Grants Administrator, presented the remodeling project for Soroptimist Park. She gave a background of the history of the park remodeling project is ongoing. She noted that the original architect of the design that is being built was Scott Doss, who died in March, 2005, thus extending the length of the project. She also noted that there is a place for public art in the park, even though no design has yet been chosen. Responding to Cr. Rupp, she noted it is not a dedicated city park, but the Soroptimist Club has asked for it to be officially designated as such. City Attorney Paul Luwe noted that the fireworks ordinance is posted on the City website. He also noted that there are specific time restrictions. He also mentioned the places in the City where it is legal to set off fireworks. Authorize Absence of Cr. Jacobson It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Rupp, to authorize the absence of Cr. Jacobson. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Kirchhoff, Becker, Rupp and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. Page 2 06-26-2006 Minutes January 17, February 21, June 5, and June19, 2006 It was moved by Cr. Rupp, seconded by Cr. Kirchhoff, to approve the minutes of January 17, February 21, June 5, and June19, 2006 as submitted. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Rupp, Kirchhoff, Becker, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. Mayor Krauss deferred action on the minutes of May 15 and June 12, 2006. Consent Items 1. Authorize payment of claims (LeMeres) 2. Approve cash-in-lieu for land dedication for Baxter Springs Condo (Krueger) 3. Authorize City Manager to sign Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Gallatin Center Lot 11 (Murray) 4. Authorize City Manager to sign Release and Reconveyance of utility easement across Lot 11, Gallatin Center (Murray) 5. Adopt Resolution 3914, Intent to create SILD 686, Oak Springs (Phase I-IV) (Shannon) 6. GDC grant application on behalf of Sikorsky (Jette) 7. Accept Street Easement from Kenyon Noble - North 14 th (Johnson) 8. Approve renaming of Bogert Park Bandshell to the Ralph Challender Bandshell (Brey) *9.Addendum Item - Approve the requested impact fee credits as previously agreed upon in the joint funding agreement, IFCR - 0504. (Epple) It was moved by Cr. Kirchhoff, seconded by Cr. Becker, to approve the Consent Items 1-8 and the Addendum Item 9 as listed. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Kirchhoff, Becker, Rupp, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. Public comment Louis Barret, 1721 S. Willson, stated concern for the way neighborhoods of single family dwellings have started to become multi-family rentals. He noted that some of the renters are poor neighbors and do not shovel sidewalks and the like. He asked that the Commissioners take back control and not let ambitious realtors or rental agencies dictate the character of the neighborhoods. Gerald LePere, 1704 South Willson, reaffirmed the comments of Mr. Barret. He called attention to a letter regarding 1805 South Willson sent to the Planning Department. He noted a new resident at 1711 South Willson and stated that the new resident also does not want to see multi-family dwelling Page 3 06-26-2006 neighborhood. He noted that multi-family dwellings degrade the neighborhood and called attention to the Bozeman Municipal Code which states that no more than four non-related citizens can legally share a single-family house. He would like to see that enforced. He noted that it can be difficult to determine how many people actually live in these houses. He requested that the City investigate alleged infractions and enforce the codes. Lori Chapman, 3116 John Deer, spoke about the SILD in Harvest Creek, and questioned why they were not allowed to decide what kind of lights are to be installed. Responding to Ms. Chapman, City Manager Kukulski noted that the type of lighting identified in the initial development agreement is what will be placed in the SILDs. He noted that the City could follow up on it. Responding to Ms. Chapman, Mayor Krauss noted that the lights are approved at the time of the subdivision approval. Tom Perrick, 1616 South Willson, was concerned with the current trend toward redefining single- family housing in neighborhoods. He noted that he purchased his property with the understanding that single-family meant just that but noted that the definition of single-family has changed over time. He requested that some consideration be given to reviewing the definition. Planning Director Andy Epple noted that staff has the letter and comments from the public and Code Enforcement Officer Hasler has been working with the City Attorney’s office. He noted that a response to the letter has been formulated, but he has not yet had the opportunity to review the letter. He noted that he thought the letter would go out tomorrow. He also noted that the definition of single-family has been in the code since at least 1987. Any size family related by blood or marriage is an acceptable number however, as far as unrelated persons are concerned, the limit is four. He noted that the problem on South 11th Street is converted basements. Mr. Luwe noted that the ordinance takes into consideration aspects of federal law. He noted that the City’s definition has precedent based on supporting court cases. Cr. Rupp questioned whether the issue was that there is illegal use in what is a single family zoning district. He also noted that it is the responsibility of the property owner to produce the evidence confirming that the [basement] apartment is legal. Mr. Epple noted that in 1972 the City began regulating single-family neighborhoods. If basement apartments built at or before this time met the established codes they are “grand-fathered” in. In some cases the record is not clear as to what the use was in the past. He noted that building permit records go back to only 1967. Cr. Rupp thanked the residents of the neighborhood for attending the meeting and voicing their concerns to the Commission. Public Hearings Page 4 06-26-2006 1.Resolution 3923, creating SILD 687, Harvest Creek Phases VI-XI This was the time and place set for the public hearing on Resolution 3923, A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, relating to Lighting District No. 687 (Harvest Creek Subdivision, Phases VI-XI); creating the district for the purpose of installing and maintaining lighting improvements and assessing the costs for installation, maintenance and energy therefor to benefitted property by the levy of special assessment. Public hearing Mayor Krauss opened the public hearing. Finance Director Anna Rosenberry presented the proposed resolution. City Clerk Brit Fontenot, stated that no formal protests were filed with the Bozeman City Clerk.. Ms. Rosenberry noted that the City is catching up with the creation of the lighting districts. She also noted that there is no back-billing or costs associated with the creation of this lighting district. She noted the average lot size in Harvest Creek is a little over 7200 square feet. She noted that the annual assessment of $67.90 per annum for district residents. City Manager Kukulski noted that the lighting structures appear to be 20-foot poles with a downward facing illuminant, and while it fits with the current lighting standards, is not decorative in style. Responding to Cr. Rupp, Ms. Rosenberry noted that the applicant coordinates with Northwest Energy, and that the City receives a detailed package of what Northwest proposes to install and estimated costs for maintaining the fixtures. Mr. Epple noted that the lighting standards, predominately located at intersections and pedestrian crossings, are necessary and were developed jointly with Northwest Energy and city officials several years ago with an emphasis on public safety. Responding to Cr. Becker, Ms. Rosenberry noted that many areas in town have lighting districts to pay for power used to light the neighborhoods for residents. The property owners within the lighting district bear the energy cost. If there is lighting but no established lighting district, the home owners association(s) pays the bill for the fixtures and ongoing costs of energy. The costs are then billed directly to the property owners. Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell noted that historically, when there were street lights, they are in lighting districts and are paid for by the residents within that district. She noted that there are some older lighting districts. She noted that the City pays the electricity costs for some lighting at intersections and street lighting. Further, she noted that some of the decorative lighting, especially those on poles in individual yards, was accomplished through neighborhood covenants. Page 5 06-26-2006 Planning Director Epple invited the public to stop by the Planning office to review the current lighting regulations. No public comment was received. Discussion There was no further discussion. Decision It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Rupp, to Resolution 3923, creating SILD 687, Harvest Creek Subdivision, Phases VI-XI.. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Becker, Rupp, Kirchhoff, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. 2. Presentation of City/County Health Department Budget This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the preliminary City-County Health Department Budget. Public Hearing Mayor Krauss opened the public hearing. Stephanie Nelson, City-County Health Officer, briefly explained the relationship between the City of Bozeman and the County of Gallatin as it relates to the inter-local agreement establishing the City- County Health Department. She presented the preliminary departmental budget to the Commission. Ms. Nelson reviewed some of the successes of the City-County Health Department over the past year and emphasized how the continued cooperation between city and county agencies were instrumental to these successes. Ms. Nelson, in responding to Mayor Krauss, stated that most of the individuals who contracted pertussis (whooping cough) during the 2005 outbreak had been immunized but a booster has only recently become available for younger children. She noted that the age group for the booster is middle school aged children, and the vaccinations and boosters will be administered in the schools. No public comment was received. Discussion There was no further discussion on this issue. Page 6 06-26-2006 Decision It was moved by Cr. Kirchhoff, seconded by Cr. Becker, to approve the preliminary City-County Health Department budget. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Kirchhoff, Becker, Rupp, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. 3. Miller remodel COA/ADR/Dev This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Miller remodel with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a second level addition and remodel to the existing two-household residence with deviations, to allow the second level addition to encroach into the required 20-foot rear yard setback, to allow the remodel front stoop and stairs to extend more than five feet into the required fifteen-foot front yard setback, and to allow the two-household residence to supply 1.5 spaces less than the required 3.5 spaces, at 809 West Olive Street, as requested by Ryan and Christine Miller, under application Z-06105. Public Hearing Mayor Krauss opened the public hearing. Planner Allyson Bristor presented the staff report. She noted that staff has reviewed the application in light of the applicable criteria and staff’s findings are contained in the staff report. Staff has forwarded a recommendation of conditional approval of the deviation for encroachment into the rear yard, conditional approval of the deviation for parking shortage, and denial for front stoop/porch/stairs encroachment into the front yard. Ms. Bristor noted that the residence constructed in 1939, and is a non-contributing structure in the district. She noted that staff is conditioning the applicant to stay within the existing footprint of the front stairs and the applicant has agreed. She stated that there is no other gamble roof in the area, but staff finds it historically appropriate. She stated that this type of roof allows the applicant to add 18" to the height and get a second floor addition. No public comment was received. She stated that the on-street parking is not considered, because it does not meet the code requirement: it is 21 feet rather than the required 24 feet. She noted that staff does not recommend the house encroaching further into the front yard; it already encroaches into the yard. Responding to Cr. Rupp, Ms. Bristor noted that recent parking is addressed, and the primary residence stands as a one-bedroom house. She also noted that there is an existing basement apartment. She stated that it appears that people are already parking on street, even though it is against code. She noted that one on-street parking spot per residence is allowed. Page 7 06-26-2006 The applicant, Ryan Miller, stated that he purchased the house in October 2005. Prior to purchasing the property, he spoke with the historic district representatives, wanting to make sure the apartment downstairs was legal. He stated that the previous owners had deferred maintenance and he knew the roof would need to be rebuilt. Regarding the recommendations, he does not want to exceed the footprint for the front stoop, they will remain within the existing footprint. He questioned Condition 7, noting that in the proposal, he would like to install cedar shakes and shingles. He stated that there are a variety of methods that can be used to break up the run, but he agreed to change the siding plan if necessary. In closing, Mr. Miller emphasized that he is trying to create a house that is pleasing to the eye and contributes to the neighborhood and greater community. Responding to Cr. Becker, Mr. Miller noted that he would be happy to resubmit renderings of more siding ideas and elevations, and that Condition 7 is his only objection. No public comment was received. Discussion Ms. Bristor noted that staff suggested Condition 7 because there were not many renderings provided by the applicant. Staff wanted to make sure that there was some sort of horizontal emphasis included in the siding design. She noted that staff would recommend, if decided by the Commission, to reword Condition 7, or eliminate it, and to have applicant submit detailed elevations showing the placement and patterns that would create some sort of horizontal emphasis on the siding. Staff was also concerned with how the shakes will be treated, and how they will age over time. Decision It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Rupp, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a second level addition and remodel to the existing two-household residence with deviations, to allow the second level addition to encroach into the required 20-foot rear yard setback, to deny the remodel front stoop and stairs to extend more than five feet into the required fifteen-foot front yard setback, and to allow the two-household residence to supply 1.5 spaces less than the required 3.5 spaces, at 809 West Olive Street, as requested by Ryan and Christine Miller, under application Z-06105, subject to the following conditions thus eliminating Condition 7 and imposing Condition 15: 1. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit building elevations and a site plan that correspond with each other and that are accurately to scale. 2. The second floor addition shall not exceed 18 inches in height from the existing residence. 3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall supply a south elevation (to scale) that depicts both the existing residence and the proposed addition overlapping one another (to ensure the height is just 18 inches). The existing/proposed south elevation shall be subject to final design review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. Page 8 06-26-2006 4.The remodeled front stoop and stairs shall not exceed the footprint of the existing covered porch and stairs. 5. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a modified site plan that accurately depicts the existing front covered porch and stairs overlapped with the proposed front stoop and stairs (to ensure the proposed footprint does not exceed the existing footprint). The modified site plan shall be subject to final design review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. 6. The front stair railing shall not be solid and/or stucco in form and material. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall supply a modified south elevation that depicts the new stair railing design, which shall be subject to final design review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. 7. The residence shall not be entirely covered in wood shingles and/or cedar shakes siding. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall supply modified elevations that depict the residence utilizing a combination of siding material. The modified elevations shall be subject to final design review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. 8. The applicant shall obtain written verification from Bozeman’s Code Enforcement Officer, Vicki Hasler, stating the basement apartment exists as a legal residence. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a copy of said verification shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. 9. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a written narrative explaining which windows of the existing residence, if any, are being replaced and/or remodeled. 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a written narrative explaining what remodeling is occurring to the existing attached garage. 11. Any cracked or broken portions of sidewalk along the street frontage created during demolition and/or new construction shall be replaced. 12. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide a color and materials palette to the Department of Planning for final design review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. 13. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and pay all required fees prior to construction, and within one year of Certificate of Appropriateness approval or this approval shall become null and void. 14. This project shall be constructed as approved and conditioned in the Certificate of Appropriateness application. Any modifications to the submitted and approved drawings Page 9 06-26-2006 shall invalidate the project's approval unless the applicant submits the proposed modifications for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior to undertaking said modifications, as required by Section 18.64.110 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. 15.Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall supply detailed elevations that depict the cedar shakes and/or wood siding as having horizontal emphasis in design and placement. The detailed elevations shall be subject to final design review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Becker, Rupp, Kirchhoff, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. 4. Request for one-year extension of Preliminary Plat approval from Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase III This was the time and place set for the public hearing for a one-year extension of the Preliminary Plat approval from Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase III. Public Hearing Mayor Krauss opened the public hearing. Planning Director Epple noted that the applicant, Chuck Hinsley, requested a one year extension Preliminary Plat approval from Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase III. He stated that the first request for extension was granted on May 20, 2005, and that expired approximately one month ago. He noted that this request for extension is for Phase III of Laurel Glen, and advised that the applicant is poised to file for platting of Phase II of Laurel Glen. Mr. Epple stated that it was originally agreed that the phases could proceed once Babcock Street was completed to standards. He stated that the staff have issues with granting this extraordinary extension. Mr. Epple noted that in-between the original adoption in May, 2002 and the present, there have been a number of different subdivision code provisions that have been adopted to implement the goals and policies of the 2020 Plan. Therefore, staff is not supportive of granting the extension. If the Commission chooses to grant the approval, Mr. Epple stated, he anticipates that the applicant’s representative is willing to work with staff on some of the upgraded code provisions and financial guarantees. Responding to Cr. Kirchhoff, Mr. Epple noted that the effect of the Commission’s denial of the extension would result in a re-submittal of the preliminary plat by the applicant. Mr. Epple stated that staff supposes that a re-submittal would involve some redesign. He also noted that the parkland aspect may be increased significantly, but noted that the basic infrastructure would not change, collector streets, utility lines would not change significantly, if at all. He noted that with the submittal of a new preliminary plat, Page 10 06-26-2006 a new transportation analysis would be required. He also stated that the previous Commission noted Phase III could proceed once Babcock was improved. Ms. Susan Swimley, representing the applicant, noted that conditional approval was granted for all phases of the Laurel Glen Subdivision on May 20, 2002, and each was conditioned on the improvement of Durston Road. Mr. Hinsley personally worked hard on the improvement of Durston Road. She stated that during the process, the Commission removed the requirement that Durston be improved prior to the next phase in October, 2004. She noted that in December, 2005, the applicant asked the Commission to modify the conditions for Phase III. She said that the plans were submitted in late May of 2006, and at that time, the attorney representing the applicant was in contact with the City Attorneys regarding the conditions. On June 9, 2006, Assistant City Attorney Tim Cooper issued a letter, and the plans were subsequently returned because the year had expired and staff was hesitant to review expired materials. She noted that noone would disagree that all four phases met the plans and rules in place at the time of original approval. She noted that the reasons for the delay have been explained, and the submittal could not be finalized until after the winter thaw, and after the May date. Ms. Swimley quoted pertinent sections of 76-3-610, Montana Code Annotated and Montana case law. She stated that none of the reasons for the delay are due to a lack of effort on the applicant, and a change of regulations is not a reason to deny the request for extension. The applicant, Chuck Hinsley, noted that this has been a long process, and for each phase, he has had to plead his case before the Commission. He stated that during that course, he has not been dragging his feet. He noted that the delays, right of ways, SIDs, etc., have taken a couple of years. The Commission chose to improve Babcock, which took an additional year. He stated that he returned to the Commission at the end of 2005 and requested approval for Phase III. The Commission allowed him to go ahead but he has been unable to get that phase built. He stated that his private home is planned in Phase III and he has been waiting for five years for approval. Mr Hinsley stated that he is before the Commission again to plead for permission to go forward with Phase III. He recognizes that sometimes staff wants to take another bite of the apple, but he has met all requriements and feels he is gone way beyond what is required. Responding to Cr. Becker, Mr. Hinsley noted that no lots have yet been sold for Phase III. He also noted that there are some problems addressing UDO standards. Staff would like to have smaller lots, with alleys, which is a traditional design. Some of his lots, however, are 18,000-20,000 square feet, and all the infrastructure is in place, the collateral streets, all the property along Durston Road, the sewer, water, and drainage systems are all established. He noted that the whole design is complete and if he has to go back, then he has to do everything from the beginning; he has to start over with sewer, water, traffic, and he is back at square one. Additionally, he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to this point, and now staff just wants to get a couple more acres of parkland. No public comment was received. There being no Commissioner objections, Mayor Krauss closed the public hearing. Discussion Page 11 06-26-2006 Responding to Mayor Krauss, Mr. Hinsley noted that at this point, they have agreed to put in the entire park with Phase III, and that is a significant amount of parkland. He stated that all parkland for Phases I, II, III, and IV will go into with III. He noted there is existing park in Phase I, and no park in Phase II. The major portion of the park was to be in Phase IV, but they have agreed place it in Phase III. Mayor Krauss noted that Mr. Hinsley went campaigned and put money up to help with the right of way, and also was on the Commission’s side for the impact fee dispute. Mayor Krauss noted that Mr. Hinsley took a brave stand side with the Commission for the discussion and law suit related to impact fees. He also stated that the City did impose some of these delays with the moratorium. Cr. Kirchhoff noted that the actions mentioned are noteworthy actions taken by the applicant, but are to the side of this request. He stated that the result of what would come from Commission denial of the extension would be of significant public benefit. Cr. Kirchhoff noted that Mr. Hinsley did help with the Durston project, but we stand to gain better configuration and better pedestrian movement without taking away the large lots because the zoning goes from R-1 to R-4. He stated that it looks like spot zoning and if you look at this subdivision, you see the pockets. He thinks the community and residents stand to benefit if the application is redesigned and resubmitted. He noted that the template exists, and it would not be an enormous challenge, but may be somewhat significant. He closed by encouraging the Commission to deny the request for extension. Cr. Becker questioned what would occur if the application were denied. He expressed concern with how the calculations would be made and questioned if there would be back calculations. He asked if the previous phases have to make up for the new code provisions? Mr. Epple noted that he thinks we will just calculate the pro rata for the phases not yet built. Phases I and II are filed on record, and new conditions can not be imposed. Mr. Epple noted that the trunk lines and main lines would not need to be changed, but lines that have not yet been installed can be redesigned. The main spine of the subdivision will not change. Cr. Becker noted there is not enough information presented to make an informed decision. He stated that he can not make such a decision tonight. Mr. Epple noted this came outside of the normal planning process, and staff did not have much time to prepare. Responding to Commission questions, City Attorney Luwe noted the statute says the governing body can grant the exception after the expiration has occurred. Cr. Becker noted that he understands that work has been done, and despite threats of litigation, it appears that the pattern is that the authority can make that decision, and the threat of a lawsuit will not motivate him to vote one way or another. He stated that he wants a better understanding of the first two phases before making a decision. Page 12 06-26-2006 Cr. Rupp noted that it is awkward to him as well, and Phase IV is the largest part that has not been completed. He stated that it also important that the Planning Director has advised to deny the request for extension. Cr. Becker called for a delay of one week. City Manager Kukulski noted this will be delayed for a few weeks. The 10th would be the most likely agenda. Ms. Swimley noted they understood that this will be put this on the next available meeting agenda. Decision Mayor Krauss continued the public hearing to July 17th. Action Items 1. City appointments to GDC’s Loan Review Committee Tracey Jette, Executive Director of Gallatin Development Corporation (GDC), presented a memo recommending appointments to the Loan Review Committee. She recommended keeping the existing loan committee. It was moved by Cr. Rupp, seconded by Cr. Kirchhoff, to appoint Brian LaMeres, Andy Epple, Kaaren Jacobson, and Tracy Menuez all with initial two-year terms, to the GDC’s Loan Review Committee. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Rupp, Kirchhoff, Becker, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. 2. Resolution 3927, proposed various changes to solid waste rates City Manager Kukulski noted that since this is an action item, the presentation should proceed but no action should follow at this time. Finance Director Anna Rosenberry presented the proposed changes to the solid waste rates. She noted that the proposal before the Commission includes the new solid waste rates proposed by the new Superintendent of Solid Waste as presented at the June 19th Commission meeting. She noted that the final decision will be made at the July 17th Commission meeting. 3. Proposed 5% increase to Tree Maintenance District rates Page 13 06-26-2006 Ms. Rosenberry presented the proposed increases to the Tree Maintenance District rates. She noted the proposed increases will be properly noticed and decided at the July 17th Commission meeting. The packets contain the proposed income and expenditures expected for the coming year. One person will be hired to fill a contract that could not get awarded due to lack of applicants. Responding to Mayor Krauss, Ms. Rosenberry noted that the capital purchases scheduled are not as expensive as have been in the past. There are a few capital items approved at the June 5th Commission meeting. This, too, will come back to the Commission for a final decision. Responding to Mayor Krauss, Ms. Rosenberry noted that under the current budget, all but $3,000 would be funded. The rate increase helps fund capital costs. If the Commission continues to adopt 5% rate increases, a balance would be built. She noted that the 5% increase over the coming years is being used to increase the balance of the fund. John VanDelinder, Superintendent of Forestry, stated that if allowable, instead of putting all allocations into boulevard planting, some could be put into parks. Responding to Mayor Krauss, Ms. Rosenberry noted that 5% translated to approximately $15,000 in extra income. She noted that about half of this budget goes to personnel costs. Mayor Krauss questioned how many trees could be purchased for $3,000. Responding to Mayor Krauss, Mr. VanDelinder noted that on average each tree costs about $200, planted by the City. He stated, however, that this year the costs were down to about $130. He also stated that as long as there is not a shortage, we will continue to buy trees locally at better prices. He noted that if trees are purchased in bulk, by the truckload, per tree costs would be lower. Mayor Krauss noted that he would like to set a target for the number of trees the City plants yearly at one hundred trees. Trees are one of the most effective remedies for removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere plus there are aesthetic and shade benefits to neighborhoods with the planting of more trees. Mr. VanDelinder noted that if there were remaining trees in the fall, the City could cost/share them. In the years past, the trees would have been on sale. Cr. Kirchhoff noted that it sounds like the City is taking a different direction or at least trying to extend the cost/share program. Mr. VanDelinder noted that the City can possibly get a truckload of trees if the decision is to purchase trees in bulk. Cr. Kirchhoff noted that, to date, there were 72 trees planted this year. Responding to Cr. Rupp, Mr. VanDelinder noted that finding City space to plant trees that the City could cultivate would be difficult. He noted that the current cost share is 50/50. Page 14 06-26-2006 Mayor Krauss noted that we may be able to get one hundred trees if purchased in bulk by the truckload. He noted that he would like to see 500 trees planted in five years. He asked if the City can enter into a contract to buy trees and have them grown for four more years. He clarified that he thinks of “local” as the statewide, not necessarily city- or county-wide. City Manager Kukulski noted the purpose of this fund, is to plant trees where they are not currently planted and to replace those trees that were planted 100 years ago. He noted that purchases such as these are the function of the fund, not building cash reserves. All the funds should be going into planting or trimming trees. Mr. VanDelinder noted that the trees use a lot of water but the City can pipe storm runoff into boulevards to water the trees. Mayor Krauss noted that tree planting encourages community adoption, participation, and donations in memoriam. He noted that it is not uncommon for school children to go out with water buckets and water the trees. It takes a some marketing and publicity to create and maintain awareness. Mayor Krauss stated that he would not opposed the 5% increase. City Manager Kukulski noted that Mr. VanDelinder commented that in the budget, the City would target to maximize the number of trees planted, with hopes to meet, or exceed, the one hundred tree expectation proposed by Mayor Krauss. Cr. Rupp noted remains convinced that the City has the capacity to plant and grow trees, and would like to spend today’s dollars on tomorrow’s trees. Ms. Rosenberry noted that earlier in the presentation she incorrectly stated that the 5% is needed for a staff person. Actually, only 1% is needed to hire the staff person. Mayor Krauss noted that Cr. Becker stated last week that the City sells out of the cost/share trees in a matter of days. He stated that he does not want to pay staff to move trees two or three times, and does not like the idea of buying now and growing them for later harvesting and replanting. City Manager Kukulski noted that the previous budget requested a full time employee (FTE), but staff wanted to contract out this position. The current budget includes $40,000 for an FTE. He noted that the goal is not to change the bottom line in the budget. Ms. Rosenberry noted that the 5% increase translated to about $1.30 per year to each citizen for the total assessment increase. Ms. Arkell clarified that the budget maintains an additional $40,000, and while the City did not have private businesses bid on the contract, the City has been able to do some of the smaller trimming, thus spending some of the budgeted funds. No motion or vote was taken. Page 15 06-26-2006 4. Proposed 5% increase to Street Maintenance District rates Ms. Rosenberry presented the proposed increases to the Street Maintenance District rates. She recounted, for the Commission, the personnel and street growth issues. Mayor Krauss noted that the operating budget contains an 11% increase when the City is only proposing a 5% increase. Ms. Rosenberry noted that the City does not need a total of 11% to fund the budget, due to other costs. Mr. VanDelinder noted that almost everything the Streets Department does deals with oil or steel. He noted that the price of hot-mix has gone up from $29 to $40 a ton. Hopefully, he stated, the proposed hot-mix plant will mitigate some of the material availability issues. Mr. VanDelinder also noted that it is the goal of the Street Department to sweep every single street. Some areas of the City, where pipes diameters are small and subject to freezing, especially in the older sections, they are usually swept first. City Manager Kukulski noted that the City should strengthen the Streets Department if we expect to see timely plowing or sweeping. He stated that the City has an opportunity to demonstrate to the public their tax dollars at work, but Streets has had a skeleton crew and is unable to keep up with some of the snow events causing some people wonder what they are paying for. Mr. VanDelinder noted that Streets has five people out at 3:00 a.m., to plow all arterials and collectors in the City. City Manager Kukulski noted if the Commission could adjust rules and components regulating on-street parking to allow for better plowing in the winter it would be extremely helpful. City Manager Kukulski noted that public safety is paramount and that it would take a long time to transition a community of 35,000 people to get used to enforced on-street parking restrictions. Ms. Rosenberry added that the payback period for the hot-mix, based on sales of hot-mix tonage alone, could be from four to five years, apart from City use. No action was taken. Break Mayor Krauss declared a break from 8:59 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. Action Items (cont) Page 16 06-26-2006 5. FY 2006 - 2007 preliminary budget details and calling for the budget hearing City Manager Kukulski noted that there will be a public hearing on this in the coming weeks. He noted the impossibility of adopting the final budget before the FY 2006 budget expires. The City does not get values from the State until late August, as a result it is not possible to present a completed budget proposal until then. She presented the preliminary budget details. Ms. Rosenberry noted that in the past the City has not relied on the preliminary budget as the preliminary operating plan. For example, the City would not hire any new positions or purchase any capital items until the final budget is approved. However, setting guidelines gives staff an idea of what is expected. She noted that for FY 2006, there are some exceptions. One of which is the purchase of digital recording equipment for the City Clerk’s office and continue with the water storage tank painting project. The City would also like to fill the two police department positions and the one fire department position, because there are extensive hiring procedures involved. City Manager Kukulski noted that there is a state ranking of fire and police department applicants within the consortium hiring process. Bozeman wants to compete for the best candidates. Therefore, the City needs to start the hiring process now. This is true especially since the Commission unanimously supported the hiring of additional public safety personnel. Ms. Rosenberry noted that because of police department turnover, and the extensive hiring process, it would be prudent, due to the high attrition rate, to over-hire when great candidates are identified. She noted that the Police Department is in a good position to find two more officers if the hiring can be done now and not in August, 2006. City Manager Kukulski noted that the City swore-in four police officers in the past few months. They then transferred to the police academy, two were subsequently lost over the next 60 days. City Manager Kukulski also noted that the City increases the number of public safety personnel almost every year. The result of over-hiring is that the following year, the City would simply hire one less FTE than would have been hired. Additionally, between turnover and vacancy savings, the City will not exceed budgetary constraints by having one additional FTE. Ms. Rosenberry noted that the Public Safety Director - Police Tymrak noted that he does not anticipate being over budget even with the hiring of extra personnel. Mayor Krauss noted that, done it the old way, we have not put enough police on the streets. When looking at the risk of committing the over-budgeting error; it seems very small compared to the risk of not having enough police on the street. Brit Fontenot, City Clerk, noted that the expenditure for the City Clerk’s office is related to new minutes software program(s). Page 17 06-26-2006 Ms. Rosenberry noted this purchase will significantly increase the efficiency of the Clerk’s office. She noted that the City has been working towards this purchase over the last few months. Mayor Krauss noted the importance of having accurate minutes. He also recognize that the timing is good for change or upgrades in that the City has recently hired a new City Clerk. Decision It was moved by Cr. Rupp, seconded by Cr. Kirchhoff, to 1. Designate the City Manager’s Recommended Budget with the following restrictions: A. No newly approved capital projects or equipment purchases will be executed prior to final budget adoption, except the following projects, which may begin on July 1, 2006: i. $8,000 - Digital Recording Device/Software for meeting minutes (Commission Budget) ii. $750,000 - Water Storage Tank Painting (Water Fund Budget) B. No newly created positions will be filled prior to final budget adoption, except the following positions, which may be filled beginning on July 1, 2006: i. Police Officers (2 FTE's) ii. Firefighter (1 FTE) The complex hiring processes for Police Officers and Firefighters have recently been initiated. Staff would like to fill the above positions as soon as possible. 2. Set the budget hearing date for July 17, 2006, and direct staff to prepare notice and budget resolutions. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Rupp, Kirchhoff, Becker, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. Non-action Items 1. Review of the Board of Adjustments UDO Text Amendments Page 18 06-26-2006 Planning Director Andy Epple presented the proposed Board of Adjustments (BOA) UDO Text Amendment. He noted that when reinstating an entity like the Board of Adjustments, ripples are created throughout the code. This is the reasoning behind the length of the document that would effectuate the BOA. He noted that staff is prepared to set the public hearing for zoning on July 18th, 2006, and City Commission hearing on August 7th, 2006. He reviewed the suggested duties that the BOA could take over from the Commission. He also noted that staff is recommending seven board members rather than five in order to have a better chance to effect the necessary quorum. He stated that the BOA is a quasi-judicial board, appealing directly to the District Court. Consistent with the Local Government Study Commission, the three year appointments should be staggered. He also noted that the Commission has the right to reclaim reviews, with a three person vote. He also suggested adjusting some of the noticing procedures; falling more in line with state law. Cr. Kirchhoff noted that City Manager Kukulski started this movement to a BOA about two years ago. He noted that we could put all of these recurring planning items to the Board of Adjustments and there would not be disastrous. The Commission could then get the BOA agenda through a memo, or the Planning Director so the Commission remains informed of the unresolved issues before the BOA. Cr. Rupp noted that he is not that comfortable with moving all the recommended decisions to a BOA. If the Commission turned some of the decisions over to the BOA, and retained others he may feel more comfortable, eventually transfering other decisions to the BOA over time. Mr. Brey noted that when the City used the BOA in the past it was specified that one member of the Planning Board served on the Zoning Commission, and one member of the Zoning Commission served on the Board of Adjustments. He noted that there was always someone willing to serve on all 3 boards fostering great coordination. He stated that he doe not think the Commission will have a hard time finding people to serve on the BOA. Mr. Epple noted that for variances, there are three criteria, set forth by state law. This Commission is serving as the BOA now, the problem lies where the variance granting board is, or is not, making decisions based upon the criteria, but based upon individual personalities. Mayor Krauss noted he does not have a problem turning deviations, for example, over to a BOA. Suspend the rules It was moved by Cr. Kirchhoff, seconded by Cr. Becker, to extend the meeting pursuant to Rule 3.A.2, of the Rules of Procedure. The motion carried. Those voting Aye being Crs. Kirchhoff, Becker, and Mayor Krauss. Those voting No being none. Cr. Rupp abstained. Non-action items 1. Review of the Board of Adjustments UDO Text Amendments (Continued) Page 19 06-26-2006 Mayor Krauss noted that appeal decisions should be maintained by the Commission. He noted that there is a reasonable expectation of appeal to elected officials. Otherwise, he would agree to turning all the other decisions over to a BOA. Cr. Kirchhoff agrees with Mayor Krauss and considers a five member BOA large enough. He stated that he would like to restrict membership to residents of the city. Cr. Rupp noted that not having the experience of his colleagues on the Commission, he would require more information presented to him to reach a comfort level with turning over certain decision to a BOA. Cr. Becker stated his ambivalence towards a BOA. He recognizes the benefit of having experienced and qualified BOA members regardless of where they reside. Mayor Krauss noted that Cr. Beckers ambivalence is shared and understandable, but stated that now is the time to seriously consider the pros and cons of a BOA. City Manager Kukulski noted that there should be a firm deadline for the Commission to determine if an issue should be called up from the BOA to be heard by the Commission. Mayor Krauss agreed with Mr. Kukulski and noted that additionally, there should be a mechanism for letting the Commission know what issues are pending with the BOA. He noted that the Commission will continue to discuss this issue. 2. Discussion Regarding City Commission Meeting Minutes City Manager Chris Kukulski noted that with the transition in the City Clerk’s office, there was a lot of discussion regarding minutes. He stated that the Clerk’s office is so much more than just taking minutes on Monday night, and that office is responsible by law for all official documents and maintaining records. City Clerk, Brit Fontenot, offered information regarding the method meeting minutes have been recorded and could be recorded without sacrifice of clarity and completeness. He noted that we have been researching a software application sold and supported by a company called For the Record (FTR). Software of this type is currently in use by the County Clerk’s office and other cities across the nation. He stated the benefits of transitioning to a similar program. He noted this will eventually allow the digital audio to be placed on the world wide web, further increasing public accessability. Responding to Cr. Becker, Mr. Fontenot noted that this system will have some possibility of being used by other departments and the flexibility of moving from one meeting room to another as meeting venues change. Responding to Cr. Rupp, City Attorney Luwe noted the hard copy signed, attested and adopted minutes are the official minutes of the City. This does not prevent the public, however, from taking exact Page 20 06-26-2006 minutes. Case law throughout the U.S. states that the actual minutes are the ones that are adopted by the Commission. 3. Weekly Update City Manager Kukulski gave a friendly reminder that there is a perception on the staff that people are not reading the weekly update. He noted that the original intent of the update was to inform the elected officials of the goings on in the City administration. He asked for feedback on whether the Commission wanted to continue this update and found it useful. Mayor Krauss noted he thinks the weekly update is useful and important and saves the Commission time. Cr. Becker agreed that the weekly update is important and asked why the update is presented in two columns, and noted the difficulty reading the weekly update on a Blackberry in the two column format and suggested a one column format. Mayor Krauss noted that he agrees with Cr. Becker. 4. Discussion - FYI Items A. Assistant City Manager Ron Brey noted that the Planning Board has opened their meeting on Tuesday, August 1st at 7:00 p.m. All three bodies, City Commission, Planning Board and Zoning Board are invited to attend and can visit with the consultant regarding the North 7th plan. (2) He also noted the Bealle Park issue that surfaced last week, and passed out a memo related to the park building. B. Ms. Rosenberry requested Commission input regarding staff reports and welcomes feedback. (2) She noted that Aaron Hagen, the Information Technology Director has resigned, noted that the City is sad to see him go. (3) She also noted that if there are no major setbacks and if the City were to sell off a piece of the new library property, it would be a private activity use, and the City could still retain the tax exempt status on the bonds that were issued. C. City Manager Kukulski thanked Human Resources Director Patty Berg and other staff, noting that there was a lot of work done regarding contracts for the unions, most notably teamsters and the Fire Department. (2) He also stated that a lot of time goes into the preparation of the preliminary budget, and Ms. Rosenberry does most of the work. He thanked her for all her efforts. (3) He noted that the City Manager contract expires in approximately one year. Mr. Kukulski stated his interest in continuing his employment with the City of Bozeman. D. Cr. Becker noted he is talking to a few groups regarding the watershed issue on Tuesday, July 11th, from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. He requested a tour. Page 21 06-26-2006 Adjournment There being no Commissioner objections, Mayor Krauss adjourned the meeting at 10:34 p.m. ____________________________________ Jeffrey Krauss, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Brit Fontenot, City Clerk PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Brit Fontenot, City Clerk Approved ______________, 2006