HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 08.11.2009MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
AUGUST 11, 2009 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at
6:30 p.m. on August 11, 2009.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
x_ Emelie Eaton
?x Kate Hart
_x_ Chuck Rodgers
x Alex Wilkins
_x Doug Poehls
_x Mark Mace
_x Chuck Dickerson
-x Norm Stamper
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brooke Baracker
Mary Ernbleton
Bill Sheridan
Kurt Markegard
James Caniglia
Jason Wells
Derek Yeager
Public In ut three-minute limit):
Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for an individual
speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action
on any item not on the agenda.
Scott Wilm, 602 West Maryland Lane, asked for a variance for a fence. He wants to replace an
existing chain link fence with a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence. Mayor Olson stated that the issue would
be on the August 25`h council workshop agenda.
Bill Kampfer, 53 Circle T in Absarokee, spoke regarding the condition of trees which cause safety
concerns in Riverside Park. Mayor Olson stated that the issue would be discussed further at the next
council workshop.
Police Department:
• Resolution - Accept COPS Hiring Recovery Program Grant
Jason Wells presented the opportunity for the city to accept the COPS Grant to employ one additional
officer for three years. Twenty grant applications were awarded in Montana, and Laurel was the
twelfth entity to receive the grant. The grant would provide wages and benefits for a full-time officer
for 36 months. The city would be required to employ the officer for not less than twelve months after
the three years are completed.
Mark Mace stated his thanks to Monica Salo for writing the grant.
Clerk/Treasurer:
• Resolution - Disposal of City records
Mary stated that this is a housekeeping issue to dispose of city records. In 2004, the city adopted a
records retention schedule which is based on the guidelines set by the Montana State Local
Council Workshop Minutes of August 11, 2009
Government Records Committee. The city will inventory and classify the records, and the State will
review the list. After that, the State will advertise the records in case the public wants to review them.
The schedule does not allow disposal of historical records.
Chief Administrative Officer:
• Resolution - Task Order No. 2 with Morrison-Maierle, Inc. for the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Upgrade Final Engineering and Bidding Services
Bill explained Task Order No. 2 with Morrison-Maierle. Phase 2A1 includes the Elm Street and
Village Subdivision lift stations, headworks facilities improvements, and a water line from the Water
Treatment Plant to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Phase 2A2 includes the activated sludge system,
plant utility water improvements and primary clarifier hydraulic improvements. Phase 2A1 will cost
$2,094,931 and phase 2A2 will cost $4,719,722, for a total project cost of $6,814,653. With
additional engineering costs of $346,800, the total amount paid to Morrison-Maierle will be
$1,032,100.
Mary Embleton distributed background information to the council. She explained that Resolution No.
R09-27 separated the project into two parts in order to obtain available Federal stimulus funding.
Resolution No. R09-40 set the timelines for the two phases of the project. Phase 2A1, which uses
stimulus funding, will be completed first. Task Order No. 2 is for $346,800. The previous task order
for the preliminary engineering study cost $237,300. One additional task order of $548,000 for the
final phase of construction will be submitted.
Great West Engineering is the grant administrator for the project. Funding for the project includes
$750,000 in TSEP funds, $750,000 in ARRA funds, and the SRF loan for $1,021,854. Phase 2A2
includes $390,700 in ARRA Forgiveness funds. Additional costs will be incurred to get the ARRA
funding, as a separate bidding process will be done for each phase of the project. Mary explained
some confusion regarding which project components are included in each of the two phases.
• Update on resale of potable water
Bill stated that Morrison-Maierle previously worked on the water rate structure, but the city does not
use their services now. Harry Whalen, Montana Rural Water, has provided valuable input regarding
water rates, but he is unable to assist the city until September. Bill stated that the city would continue
to work on this item, with assistance from Great West Engineering.
Mark Mace mentioned that the Public Works Committee discussed the issue at the meeting this week
and there will be further discussion at the September meeting.
Executive Review:
• Council Issues:
o Trees in boulevards (Chuck Dickerson)
There was a lengthy discussion regarding trees in boulevards, whose responsibility it is to maintain
the trees, and the liability concerns for the city. Chuck Dickerson stated that the trees in the Town
Square need to be trimmed.
Kurt Markegard reviewed parts of the tree ordinance. Section 12.32.020 states that "the owner of
property adjoining a boulevard shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of the boulevard and
he shall keep the trees planted thereon trimmed and in a condition so that the same shall not be a
public nuisance; and, if necessary for the city to remove any trees from such boulevard, the costs of
2
Council Workshop Minutes of August 11, 2009
such removal shall be assessed against the abutting property owner." The ordinance states that the
Tree Board is responsible to issue permits, and Kurt questioned whether the council really wanted the
Tree Board to do so. He suggested that the Public Works and Code Enforcement Departments should
be responsible. Kurt recently discussed enforcement issues with Judge Kerr, who stated that the
ordinance would be enforced.
Kurt explained that unbudgeted costs would be incurred by the city if it had to trim trees in the
boulevards. Also, city personnel are not qualified to trim trees, and a certified arborist would need to
be hired to correctly prune the trees.
There was further discussion. Mayor Olson stated that conflicts in the ordinance need to be reviewed
further.
Chuck Dickerson stated that his questions had been answered, and he asked for continued review of
the issue.
Other items
A resolution transferring cash between various funds for the purposes of year-end closing was added
to the council workshop agenda. Mary explained that $2,060.18 from the TCSP Fund and $4,439.82
from the Planning Fund needed to be transferred to the Historical Preservation Grant Fund for use as a
grant match. Funds of $1,183.48 need to be transferred from the Street Maintenance Fund to the
CTEP Fund as an advance until the matching funds are received from the property owners. Because it
is stated as an advance, the funding will be put back in the Street Maintenance Fund when it is paid.
Review of draft council agenda for August 18, 2009
• Ordinance No. 009-09: Ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the City of Laurel,
Montana, to change the zoning designation of a parcel of property located in Yellowstone
County from Residential Manufactured Home to Light Industrial Zoning. (First reading -
07/21/2009; Public Hearing - 08/04/2009; Second reading - 08/18/2009)
Chuck Dickerson asked if Cenex would have to wait a year to reapply for the zone change if the
council does not approve it now. Mayor Olson stated that was correct.
Emelie Eaton asked James about the twelve zoning criterion the Planning Board considers for a zone
change. James stated that zone change requests would not always comply with all twelve criterion.
Annexation of the land was suggested to Cenex, but CHS has not agreed to annex.
There was discussion regarding water, sewer, and fire flow issues and the request by Cenex to extend
an existing city water main to the proposed buildings. Doug questioned whether the city should
approve another request from a county entity, thereby setting precedence for future development
outside the city.
Emelie questioned statements made by CHS representatives that Cenex would pay additional taxes of
over $200,000. Mary explained that any expansion of a business or building is subject to increased
taxes. However, since Cenex is in the County, expansion of Cenex property would not provide any
tax revenue benefit to the City of Laurel. The increased revenue would go directly to Yellowstone
County.
3
Council Workshop Minutes of August 11, 2009
There was further discussion regarding whether to accept the Planning Board's recommendation, the
lack of a clear cut recommendation by the Planning Board, the inability to put stipulations on a zone
change, the lack of opposition voiced at the Planning Board and Council's public hearings, and a
previous request from Cenex to extend a sewer line on the east side of the west complex. Mayor
Olson emphasized that the increase in taxable valuation would go to Yellowstone County, not to the
City of Laurel.
The second reading of Ordinance No. 009-09 will be on the August 18th council agenda.
There were no changes to the draft council agenda.
Attendance at the August 1$ 2009 council meeting
Norm Stamper and Chuck Rodgers will not attend.
Announcements
Norm Stamper stated that some city streets are being torn up since the State project on East Main
Street began. Mayor Olson stated that the city will meet with Stefan Streeter on Friday to discuss the
street and road closure issues.
Chuck Dickerson stated that the Commissioners meeting is scheduled on Wednesday at 11:30 a.m.
Mayor Olson encouraged the council to participate in the Heritage Days event on August 22nd
Gloves and aprons will be provided for those that help.
Mayor Olson spoke regarding the Little League Senior All Star baseball team and the Laurel Dodgers.
Governor Schweitzer sent letters to both teams, and the city also extended congratulations to them.
Mark asked that the city show appreciation to the baseball teams at a future council meeting.
Mayor Olson, Bill Sheridan, Kurt Markegard, Commissioners Kennedy and Ostlund, Tim Miller, and
Dan Schwartz participated in a conference call today. One discussion item was the County's request
for millings for use on Alder Avenue, from 7t" Street to East Maryland Lane, and on Fir Avenue, from
East 8th Street to East Maryland Lane. The city intended to use the millings this year to repair Alder
Avenue, but the County wants to wait until next year to obtain core samples and allow for proper
binding of the asphalt. The County suggested that rough gravel be put over the top of Alder Avenue
this year, and the project would be scheduled for next June or July. Mayor Olson stated that, after the
two milling projects are complete, the County requested that the City of Laurel annex both streets.
The millings could be stockpiled north of Ponderosa Park on Fir Avenue.
The water issue and the need to alleviate a pond in front of a county residence on 12th Avenue was
another item of discussion with the County Commissioners. The storm water issues need to be
addressed and resolved before an overlay is done on 12th Avenue. The County wants the city to annex
all of 12th Avenue.
Doug asked regarding annexation of the remaining county properties on 12t" Street, as the properties
would be totally surrounded if the City of Laurel annexes the street.
4
Council Workshop Minutes of August 11, 2009
The conference call also included discussion regarding the Yellowstone County Veterans' Cemetery
and the need for an inclusive agreement and a list of needed resources and proposed costs. As more
information is available, Mayor Olson will inform the council.
The council workshop adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
" eQ&e--e?
Cindy Allen
Council Secretary
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of
the Council for the listed workshop agenda items.
1'.321,010
Chapter 12.32
TREES AND BOULEV_RDSr
Sections.
12,31010 Boulevards to be kept in
grass and trees.
12,31020 Boulevards-Reaulation
of trees on.
12.32,030 Cottonwood trees
prohibited,
12,31,040 Definitions.
12,32,050 Creation and
establishment of a city
tree board,
12,32,060 Term of office.
12,32.070 Compensation.
12.32,080 Duties and
responsibilities.
19.32,090 Operation.
12.32,100 Tree species to be
planted.
12,32,110 Spacing.
12,31,120 Distance froth garb and
sidewalk.
12. 32.130 Distance from street
corners and fireplugs.
t2.32.140 Utilities.
12,32,130 Public tree care.
12,32,160 Pruning standards,
12,32,170 Tree topping,
12.321. 130 Pruning and corner
clearance.
12.31190 Dead or diseased tree
removal on private
property,
12.32.200 Protection of trees.
12,32,210 Interference with the city
tree board,
12.371.120 Arborist's license and
board,
12.32,130 authority of adjoining
property owner to plant
or care for trees on
boulevard or parkways,
12.32,140 Removal, cutting and
injury,
12,32,250 Interference with trees b-
house mover, permit
required.
12,32,260 Procedure fnr temporal-
removal.
1232.270 Insects and diseases-
Declared nuisance,
12,32.280 Spraying.
12.32.290 Review by the city council,
12.32,300 Violation----Penalty,
Prior,ode ni.>icry: 3r:or :uda i§ 11.36. i J.20 110 and
0 ' 02)
1.2.32.010 Boulevards to be kept in
grass and trees.
_Lkll boulevard areas must be kept in grass
and trees unJe;; specific permission is granted
by the city council for other purposes. Ar
person failing to cornply or violating the pro-
visions of this section shall be deemed ;wilt-
of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2005)
I2.32.020 Boulevards-Regulation of
trees oil.
The owner of property adjoining: a lx)ul°-
vard shali be responsible for the carte .aaJ
mainte.nazwe.:,f ilie botjlev;w(l and tie slj iJl
keep die trees planted thereon trirnme.,E and in
a condition So that the same shall nix. be. a
public. nuisance.; and, it necessary for the cir,
to remo"? any trees from such boulevard, th
cost, of such removal shall be assessed
a.-ainstthe abUttin?P1 JPCTO, Thner. (Ord. 0.5
"part'), 2 005 )
_aur2; 3. nr `do 1. a
13.33.030
12.32.030 Cottonwood trees
prohibited.
No cottonwood trees shall be planted or
allowed to grow on private property or boule-
vards within the city limits. (Ord. 05-1 (part).
2005)
12.32.040 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
"Park trees" mean trees, shrubs, bushes and
alt other woody vegetation in public parks
having individual names, and all areas owned
by the city, or to which the public has free
access as a park.
'`Strcet trees" mean trees, shrubs, bushes,
and all other woody vegetation on land lying
between property lines on either side of all
streets, avenues, or ways within the city. (Ord.
05-1 (part), 3000
12,32.050 Creation and establishment
,of a city tree board.
There is hereby created and established an
advisory board to the city council which will
be known as the city tree board for the city of
Laurel ("board") which shall consist of four
members who are residents of this city or who
live within two miles thereof, who shall be
appointed by the mayor with approval of the
council. The members shall come from differ-
ent interest groups incl+idin4 homeowners,
tree professionals, street department, and city
govermm-nt. {Ord. 05-1 (part), 2000
12.:32.060 Term of office.
The term of the four persons to be ap-
point-.d by the mayor shall be three years ex-
cept that the term of two of the members ap-
pointed to the first board shall be for only one
year and the term of three members of the first
board shall be for two years. In the event that
i w'acancy shall occur during the t--nn of any
member, his successor shall be appointed for
the unexpired poi-tion of the t:.rm. (Ord. 05-1
(part), 2003)
12,32.1970 Compensation.
Ntembers of the board shall serve without
compensation. (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2005)
1232.080 Duties and responsibilities.
It shall be the responsibility of the city tr-e
board to study, investigate, cuunsel, develop
and administer a written plan for the car-.
preservation, pruning, planting, replanting:.
removal or disposition of trees and shrubs in
parks, along streets, and in other public areas.
Such plan will be presented annually to the
city council and upon their acceptance and
approval shall constitute the official compre-
hensive city tree plan.
The board shall promote and superN, ice the
esta.blislhment of a tree inventory- for street and
park trees. The inventory shall be updated
with the results of ground inspections -.very
three year;.
'The board, when requested by the city
council, shall consider, investigate, make find-
ing, report and recommend upon any special
matter or question coming within the scope of
its work. (Ord. 0.5-1 (part), 2005)
12.32°090 Operation.
The board shall choose its own officers..,
in,ik? its own rules and re,ulations, which
shall be approved by the city council, and
keep ajournal of its proceedings. _a majority-
of the members shall be a quorum for the:
transaction of business. (Ord. D5-1 (part).
2005.)
12,32.100 Free species to be planted.
The city 'tree board shall develop and main-
tain a I i.;t of desirable trees for plantin7 along.
Laurl supp.:?o d, 4-GO! 233
12.37.100
streets in three size classes, based on mature
height: small (under twent}, feet), medium
(twent-, to forty feet) and large (over fatty
feet). Efforts shall be made to ensure a sufti-
zient diversity of tree species. Lists of prohib-
ited tries or trees not;uitable for planting -Rill
also be developed and maintained by th--
board. (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2005)
12,32,110 ,Spacing.
The spacing of street trees will be in accor-
dance the tliree size classes listed in Sec-
tion 113 2,100 of this chapter, and no trees
may be planted closer together than the fol-
lowing: small trees, fifteen feet; medium trees,
minty-five feet: and large trees, thirty-five
tent; e,.zept in special plantings designed or
approved by a landscape architect. (Ord. 05-1
(part), 2005)
12,32.120 Distance From curb and
,sidewalk.
The distance trees may be planted from
curbs or curb lines and sidewalks will be in
accordance with the three size classes listed in
Section 11232. 100 of this chapter, and no tree
may be planted closer to any curb or sidewalk
than the following: small trees. tvvo feet; me-
dium and lame trees, three feet. (Ord. 05-1
(part), 20)5)
may be planted under, or within ten Feet of
any overh ad urlllty wire. (Ord. 05-1 (part).
2005)
12.32.10 Public tree care,
The, it,. gall the ritrht to plant, prune,
illaimain, al.d remove tree,, plants, and shrubs
vvithin the Lines of all street;, alleys, avenue:,
lanes. square;, and public rounds as may be
necessary to insure public safety or to pre-
serve or enhance the sy mmetry and beauty of
such public -,rounds.
The city tree board may remove or cause or
order to be removed any tree or part thereof
which is in an unsafe condition or which by
reason of its nature is injurious to sewers,
electric pe,-er lines, gal lines, water lines, or
other public improvements, or is affected witl.
any iniurious Fungus, insect. or other pest.
This section does not prohibit the planting of
street trees by adjacent property owners pro-
vidin7 that the selection and location of said
trees is in accordance with Sections 12.32. 100
and 113^_.110 of this chapter. (Ord. 05-1
(part), 3000
12.32.150 Pruning standards.
All trey gruning on public property shall
:onfann to the \NS1 A300 standards for tree
;:are operations. (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2003)
12.31130 Distance from street curners
and fireplugs,
o street tree shall be planted within thirv -
Ytve feat of anv Street zorder, measured from
the poin, of nearest intersectimz curbs or curb
lines. do street tree shall be planted within ten
feet of am, fireplug, (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2005)
12.32,140 Utilities.
No strz!ot trees other than those species a.-
z:!pted as small trees by the ;it% tree board
12.32,170 Tree topping,
It shall be unlawful as a normal practice for
any person, firm, or city department to top an}
?traet pat:: tre:,, or other trae on publi:
propertt,. Topping is defined as the severe cut-
ting ba;:l: of limbs to stubs larger flan _hree
in'h_s diameter within tho tree'; cro.vn to
such a de Jree so as to remove the normal can-
op,; and disfigure the tree. Crown reduction
by a qua'ified arborist may be .3Libstltuted,
-vvherc approoriate. Tr°es .,everel%- damaged b,,
12.3-1,170
storms Or other cau;as, or certain trees !ol-
der utility wires or oilier obstructions where
other pruning pra:.tice.s are impractical tnay
be extimpted from this hapter at the deter-
mination oFthe city tree board. (Ord. 05-1
apart), -00>>
1232.130 Pruning and corner
clearance.
Every owner of any tree overhanging any
street or right-of-way within the city shall
prune. the branches so that such branches shall
not severely- obstruct the light from any str?et
lamp or obstruct the view of any street nlter-
;mction, and so that there shall be a clear space
of thirteen fret above street surface or eight
feet above the sidewalk surface, Said owners
shall remove all dead, diseased or dangerous
trees, or broken or decayed limbs, which con-
stitute a menace to the safety of the public.
The city shall have the right to prune any tree
or shrub on private property when it interferes
with the proper spread of light along the street
from a street light, or interferes with visibility
of any traffic control device or Sian or Sight
triangle at inter3ectio113.
Tree limbs that grow near high voltage
electrical conductors shall be maintained clear
of such conductors by the electric utility com-
pany in ccnnpliance with any applicable fran-
chis? agreements. A titiliti tr?c trimming pol-
icy must be revizwzd by the utility' company
and oity tree hoard prior to any trimming o
the utility,-. Ord. 05-1 (part), 2005)
11,3 2.190 Dead or diseased tree
removal on private
property.
The city shall have the right to cause the
ro-mov3l of any dead or diseased trees on pn-
?;ate property within the city, when 3!tch tree3
constitute a ha?.ard to life and propert3, or
harbor insects ar disease w'Iilch constitute a
potential threat to other trees within rile city.
The city tree board will notify in tisriting the
owner; of such tree3. Removal shall be done
by ;aid y., ners at their overt expense within
sixty days after the date of Service of notice.
In the event of failure of owners to comply
with such provision;, the city shall ha), e the
authorit,; to remove such trues and large the
;ost of removal on the ow'ner's property, t_a,?
noticz, (Drd. D5-I (part), ?005)
1132.200 Protection of trees.
In order to maintain the overall forest, rea-
sonable efforts shall be made to replace trees
that are remwj.,d and to protect quality trees
that are endangered.
Trees removzd by decision of the city tree:
board or by natural cau3as shall be replaced
Mme Nhe? e in the toast on a one-for-one ba-
sis within one y ear. 'rhe location and species
of any r°placemrnt tree :,hall be determined
by the cit,, . tree board.
Trees of desirable species and good health
shall be protected as much as possible from
damage during construction, sidewalk repair,
utilities work above and below ground, and
other similar activities. ifhz zone of protection
shall include the around beneath the canopy pf
the tree. !,Ord. 05-1 Ipart), 2005)
1,232-110 Interference with the city
tree board.
It shall be unlawful for any person to pre-
vent, delay or interfere yvitla the city of Laurel.,
its cir, tree ooard, or any of its agents while
enga gin; in and about the planting, cultivatina-
1 '
P ? runin 7, spra,, in g, or remo,, Mg of
any street trees, park tr.-e3, or trees on private,
groUtrds, as authori72d by this chapter (Ord,
05-' (,part), 2005)
L-Iursl >upp 'Ic +, 4-06; 2 50
i?.3??20
12.32?20 Arborist's license and bond,
It shall be unlawful for any person or iron
to engage in the business or occupation of
pruning, treating, or removirij street or park
trees .vithin the city w ithout first applying For
and procuring a license. The license fee shall
be sevent,, dollars annually in advance; pro-
,'id d, ho .tiever, that no license shall be re-
aaired UI an, public servic: company includ-
ing electric utiiities and their agents and con-
tract?)r; or cite eanployee doing such work in
the pursuit of their public service endeavors.
Before an;v license shall be issued, each appli-
cant shall first file evidence of possession of
liability ialsurance in tilt minimum amounts of
seven hundred fifty thousand dollars per claim
and one million five hundred thousand dollars
per occurranca indemnifying the city or any
person injured or damaged resulting from the
pursuit of such endeavors asherein described.
(Ord. 03-1 (part), 2005)
12,32,240 Removal, cutting and
injury.
No person shall remo,,e, destroy, cut, de-
Face, trim, or in an} way injure or intarfer-,
with any street or park tree without a permit
from the ? it,, Free board. (Ord. 03-1 I part )_
?005 )
12.32.250 Interference with trees by
hoarse mover, permit
required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to move
any building along any street, avenue or all:.-
in the cir} , in such a way as to interfere with
or injure any tree nr ;hruh in any street, a7,2-
Flue, alley, or public place, including parks and
parkways, without a written permit obtained
From the iry tree board. The application for
such permit, and the permit issued, shall spec-
ify the particular building and the particular
route to be followed. (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2003 )
12,312311 Authority of adjoining
property owner to plant or
care for trees on boulevard
or parkways.
Permission is given to the owners of real
estate to improve their premises by planting
trees and properly caring for trees in the
boulevards 2djoin1ing their property after per-
mit is obtained from the cite'. Such trees shall
in no cast, interfere -,vith the hull use of the
streets for public purposes, and no person
shall plant any- tree within the limits of any
park,Aay, street, or alley in the cif-% titiith,out
Ila,, ing, first obtained a variYen permit From the
city.
It ;hall be the dui of an,, property o,,vner, to make request in writing to the cil , stati'.1--7
the varlet-, and precisa location of each tree
proposed to be planted. The permit shall
spec;-'Y location and varier Df zach tree.
(Ord. 05-1 (.part)- 2005)
12.32.:60 Procedure for temporary
removal.
All mewing of trees and shrubs made nec-
assary b\ moving of buildings or any other
purpose shall be done under supervision of the
city tree board, at the expense of the owners
of the buildings, or the party requesting the
same. Should such :no,,ing cause the death :)f
the tree, the o-xner of the buildines or ahe
party regi.iestir,, the temporary removal. athis
,D, n expense,;halI r;place the sarne underd
super-; is , r -F Elie vity tree board. ; Ord. 05-1
(part), , I0 1
12.32,2°0 Insects and diseases-
Declared nuisance.
All i:ns,:Ct pests and diseases known to be
injur io us co fruit. shade, and ornamental trees
and Sit ..D.i. and all trees, shi_ibs and b"eCretable
gro,,vt i ill e?ted or infect: d therewith Cons--
250-1 Lauri 3upo l..t-
12.32 -170
tote a menace, and are hereby declared to be a
common nuisance. (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2005)
13.32.260 Spraying.
Every person who is owner or in possession
or control or management of any lot, block or
parcel of land upon which there are any fruit,
shade or ornamental trees or shrubs which are
infested or infected with any insect pests or
diseases known to be injurious to such fruit.
shade or ornamental trees or shrubs, shall,
tirithin three days, upon written order of the
zity tree board, spray or cause. the same to be
sprayed in such manner and with some insec-
ticide designated by the city. Any person fail-
ing to comply with any such order shall be
deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance.
(Ord. 05-1 (,part), 2005)
12.32.290 Review by the city council.
The city, council shall have the right to re-
Vlaw th° coMuct, acts, and decisions of the
city- tree board. Any person may appeal from
any ruling or order of the city tree board to the
city council who may hear the matter and
make final decisions. (Ord. 05-1 (part), 2005)
12.32.300 Violation--Penalty.
Any person violating any provi-iion of this
chapter shall be, upon conviction or a plea of
,uilty, subject to a civil fine not to exceed one
hundred dollars Tor each violation. (Ord. 05-1
(part), 2005)
RESOLUTION NO. R09-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAUREL CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE DIVISION
OF PHASE H OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT INTO
TWO SEPARATE PARTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AVAILABLE
FEDERAL STIMULUS FUNDING.
WHEREAS, the City of Laurel's project known as Phase II of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Project currently includes the following components:
-Replace Elm Lift Station
-Rehabilitate the Village Lift Station
-Grit Removal and Headworks Facility Improvements
-Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic Improvements
-Plant Water System Improvements
-Expand the Existing RBC System with Activated Sludge
WHEREAS, the State of Montana is requesting nominations for existing and eligible projects
for available Federal Stimulus Funding; and
WHEREAS, the only components currently eligible for the State of Montana's First Phase for
available Federal Stimulus Funding are:
-Replace Elm Lift Station
-Rehabilitate the Village Lift Station
-Grit Removal and Headworks Facility Improvements
-Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic Improvements
-Plant Water System Improvements
WHEREAS, the City Council supports dividing or splitting the above-project into two parts in
order to be qualify for available the Federal Stimulus Funding through the State of Montana.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana,
Phase II of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project is hereby split into two separate and distinct parts
in order to qualify for available Federal Stimulus Funding through the State of Montana as follows:
Part 1: -Replace Elm Lift Station
-Rehabilitate the Village Lift Station
-Grit Removal and Headworks Facility Improvements
-Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic Improvements
-Plant Water System Improvements
and
Part 2: -Expand the Existing RBC System with Activated Sludge
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 17, 2009, by Council Member
Dickerson
R09-27 WWTP Stimulus split
PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel this 17th day of March,
2009.
APPROVED by the Mayor this 17th day of March, 2009.
CITY OF LAUREL
nneth E. Olson, Jr., r
ATTEST:
Mary K.
TO FO
Sam Painter, Ngal"Counsel
Elk River Law Office, P.L.L.P.
R09-27 WWTP Stimulus split
RESOLUTION NO. R09-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAUREL CITY COUNCIL CLARIFYING
PHASE II OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT
AND TO ESTABLISH A TIME FRAME FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION
OF THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Laurel's project known as Phase II of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Project currently constitutes the following options FOR THE City Council's consideration.
Table 9-2 of 2009 Updated Wastewater Facilities Plan PER
Replace Elm Lift Station
Rehabilitate the Village Lift Station
Grit Removal and Head works Facility Improvements
Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic Improvements
Plant Water System Improvements
Expand the Existing RBC System with Activated Sludge
Total Project Cost: $6,142,000
and/or
Table 9-3 of 20Q9 Updated Wastewater Facilities Plan PER
Add UV Disinfection System
Total Additional Project Cost: $536,000
and/or
Table 9-4 of 2009 Updated Wastewater Facilities Plan PER
Influent Lift Station Rehabilitation
Sludge Digestion and Transfer System
Effluent Outfall Replacement
Total Additional Project Cost: $624,000
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the needs of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and
System, but also realizes that these projects are funded mainly by user rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana,
that the City Council considered the options and determined that is in the best interest of the citizens of
Laurel that Phase II of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project constitutes the following components:
Replace Elm Lift Station
Rehabilitate the Village Lift Station
Grit Removal and Head works Facility Improvements
Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic Improvements
Plant Water System Improvements
Expand the Existing RBC System with Activated Sludge
Total Project Cost: $6,142,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, that the
following time frame for the Project, prepared by Morrison Maierle, Inc., is hereby adopted to ensure the
successful completion of the Project as follows:
R09-40 Phase 11 WWTP Project Clarification
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS - STIMULUS PACKAGE
Final Plans & Specifications to MDEQ for review - June 2009
Advertisement for Bids - August 2009
Construction Contract Bids - September 2009
Award and Start of Construction - October 2009
End of Construction - July 2010
PHASE 2 TMPROVEMENTS -- REMAINING WORK
Final Plans & Specifications to MDEQ for review - October 2009
Advertisement for Bids - November 2009
Construction Contract Bids - January 2010
Award and Start of Construction - February 2010
End of Construction - June 2011
The foregoing deadlines are in reference to Resolution No. R09-27, dividing the project into two
parts for the purpose of applying for Federal Stimulus funding. If the City of Laurel does not receive any
stimulus funding, then the project would revert back to a single project status, and the latter schedule
would apply.
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 21, 2009, by Council Member
Eaton
PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel this 21St day of April, 2009.
APPROVED by the Mayor this 21St day of April, 2009.
CITY OF LAUREL
enneth E. Olson, Jr., yor
ATTEST:
R09-40 Phase II WWI? Project Clarification
Elk River Law Office, P.L.L.P.
Phase 2A1 Phase 2A2 Both Phases
Source TSEP ARRA
Forgiveness ARRA
Loan SRF Total TSEP SRF Total TSEP ARRA
Forgiveness ARRA
Loan Total
SRF Total
Administrative and
Financial Services
Personnel Costs $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $5,000 $0 _ $0 $0 $5,000
Office Costs $750 $0 $0 $0 $750 $750 $0 $750 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500
Professional Services $16,000 $0 $0 $24,000 $40,000 $0 $24,500 $24,500 $16,000 $0 $0 $48,500 $64,500
Legal Costs $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Audis Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
Travel & Training $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1.000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
Loan Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loan Reserves $0 $0 $22,104 $81,577 $103,681 $0 $302,972 $302,972 $0 $0 $22,104 $384,549 $406,653
Interim Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 _ $0 $0
Bond Counsel and Related Costs $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Total AdministrativelFinancial Costs $26,250 $0 $22,104 $105,577 $153,931 $7,250 $332,472 $339,722 $33,500 $0 $22,104 $438,049 $493,653
Activity Costs
Engineering Design $0 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000 $0 $243,000 $243,000 $0 $0 $0 $513,000 $513,000
Construction Engineering Services $0 $0 $0 $179,OOU $179,000 $100,000 $313,000 $413,000 $1001000 $0 $0 $492,000 $592,000
Land Acquistion $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $171,250 $390,700 $337,196 $344,187 1 1$1,243,333 $390,250 $2,713,083 $3,103,333 $561,500 $390,700 $337,196 $3,057,270 $4,346,666
Contingency $20,000 $0 $0 $228,667 1 1 $248,667 $35,000 $585,667 $620,667 $55,000 $O $0 $814,334 $869,334
Total Activity Costs $191,250 $390,700 $337,196 $1,021,854 $1,941,000 $525,250 $3,8541750 $4,380,000 $716,500 $390,700 $337,196 $4,876,604 $6,321,000
Total Project Costs $217,500 $390,700 $359,300 $1,127,4311 1$2,094,931 $532,500 $4,187,222 $4,719,722 $750,000 $390,700 $359,300 $5,314,653 $6,814,653
Laurel Phase 2A Projects with ARRA Funding of $750,000
Component Budget Cost ($)
Phase 2A1 Construction $1,492,000
Phase 2A2 Construction $3,724,000
Total Construction $5,216,000
Predesign Engineering ,both phases) $185,000
Final Design Engineering + PM (both phases) $298,000
Bidding (Both Phases) $44,000
Construction Services Phase 2A1 $157,000
Construction Services Phase 2A2 $391,000
Total Engineering Services $1,075,000
TSEPISRFIARRA Grant/Loan Administration Needs updating
Notes
Component costs from Table 9-2; increased by 3% for 3Q 2009 bidding; increased by 8% for ARRA requirements
Component costs from Table 9-2; Increased by 4% for 4Q 2009 bidding.
Compare to $5,118,000 in Table 9-2. Additional cost due to estimated ARRA requirements.
Services Included in Task Order No.1
Services Included in Task Order No. 2
Services included in Task Order No. 2
Services included in future Task Order
Services Included in future Task Order
Compare to $980,000 prior to AR RA and multiple bid requirements
From Great West
11 WT tiI"' Street City Of Laurel
City Planner: 628-4796 P. 0. Box 10
FAX: 628-2241
Water Office: e: 628-7431 LaureLi Montana 59044
7/30/09
Zone Change Request
Applicant: CHS
Current Zoning: Residential Manufactured Homes
Proposed Zoning: Light Industrial
Location S16, T02S, R24E, 1222; Tract A-1 COS 1222
Acres: 12.396
General Location: North of South 9th St. lying between 9th St. and 1-90 and between South 8th
Avenue and Yellowstone Avenue
Adjacent Zoning: The property to the east is zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) on property owned by
CHS. The property to the north is zoned Light Industrial (LI). The property to the south is zoned
Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) and to the east the land is zoned Residential Tracts (RT)
and is not subdivided. The HI to the east is divided by a road which is a significant dividing line
and along with the residences across the street to the south; the circumstances do not appear give
the applicant the absolute right to a zone change (please see the attached 12 criteria for zone
changes).
Annexation: The applicant was requested to annex the property, but chose not to do so at this
time. They have the right to request a zone change without annexation and have chosen to do so.
If LI is granted to the applicant it will be nearly impossible to annex the land without a request
for annexation from the landowner. However, they may choose to do so at a later date to obtain
the water capacity they seek. City of Laurel water customers must ask for City council approval
before extending a city water line and the line they wish to extend has fire flow and chlorination
issues due to the length of the litre they seek to extend. The Planning Board does not have the
ability to turn this zone change request down solely because they want it annexed. It is illegal to
reject a zone change request and allow it shortly thereafter because the second request for a zone
change was accompanied by an annexation request.
Growth Management Plan: The property does not appear to conflict with or support the GMP.
If the zone change request is denied the applicant must wait a year before they can apply a
second time.
We cannot ask for a site plan on a zone change unless the intended use requires a Special
Review. As such, questions about the building layout, traffic volume (unless over 500 daily
traffic trips are expected at the point a traffic impact study is needed - traffic routes are a fair
question), height, etc. are not pertinent to the request. Traffic routes are a concern and is a
legitimate concern. The applicant was made aware that Highway Commercial would allow their
possible uses though a Special Review for some of the proposed buildings would be needed. It
may seem appropriate to have a site plan to view, but unless an applicant is going through a
Special Review process they are not binded to the Special Review and the applicant could show
a product that they know people would like with no intention of using it. Furthermore, an
applicant or future owner could substantially change the use of a property in the more distant
future.
l
h r, ..
manner. It was not until city commission tweed down the rezoning application that landowner first
raised such procedural issues,
7. Board of Adjustment Discretionary Power for Variances: Variance order granted for the operation
of a law office in a zoned residential area will not be set aside without a showing that the variance was
contrary to public interest and thus an abuse of discretion. K lis a Bd f Ad'ustment 169
Mont, 93, 544 P.2d 1228 (1976).
8. Zoning Modification: Where zoning ordinance amending preexisting zoning ordinances of city to
reclassify lots was unanimously passed by City Commission, amendatory ordinance was valid
irrespective of number of protests by landowners in area. Olson L City Comm'n 146 ManC 386, 407
P.2d 374 (1965),
9. Purposes of Municipal Zoning (Twelve (12) Point Lowe Test) Montana Supreme Courtin Lowe v.
Ci of Missoula 525 P,2d 551 (1974), held evidence before city council failed to support down
zoning of land near Waterworks Hill to restricted one family residential district. Down zoning was to
prevent an apartment complex. Plaintiff legal counsel dissected § 76-2-304 Purposes of Zoning into 12
tests and argued that testimony presented to city council failed to..meet-h2-tesfsf'which are supra at 552-
553:
1. Whether the new zoning was designed in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
2. Whether the new zoning was designed to lessen congestion in the streets.
3. Whether the new zoning will secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers.
rte- 4, Whether the new zoning will promote health and general welfare.
5. Whether the new zoning will provide adequate light and air. -
6. Whether the new zoning will prevent the overcrowding of land.
7. Whether the new zoning will avoid undue concentration of population,
8. Whether the new zoning will facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements.
9" Whether the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district.
10. Whether the new zoning gives consideration to peculiar suitability of the property for
particular uses.
11. Whether the new zoning was adopted with a view to conserving the value of buildings.
12. Whether the new zoning will encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout such
municipality.
Montana Supreme court made findings with respect to each of 12 tests and found supra at 554 "that
rezoning area was an abuse of discretion." Two significant Court test findings supra at 553 include:
Test 4. It cannot be argued that the proposed rezoning (down zoning) would promote the
health and welfare of the area. The health and welfare of the area would be promoted if a sewer
were available and the new apartment complex plans to bring a sewer line to the complex, into an
area where the homes are on septic tanks.
Test 8. The rezoning would in no way change or reduce the necessary public facilities, such as
transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, etc. With res ect to the ob" ti n made at the
54