Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10.05.1982Minutes of the City Council of Laurel October 5, 1982 A regular meeting of the city Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the Council Chambers and called to Order by Mayor Albert Ehrlick at 7:00 p.m., on October 5, 1982. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lonnie Kellogg Bill Brennan Marvin Carter Rob Harris Duane Behm Bob Gauthier COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Meyers Susan Carter INVOCATION: Invocation given by Reverend Whanger. CORRECTION OF MINUTES.OF SE.PTEMBER 21~ 1982: Motion by Alderman Marvin 'Carter to award the bid to Johnson Distributing of Billings for a truck and two packers in the amount of $76,303.00 on a three- year Lease/Purchase~ Seconded.by Alderman Kellogg. Carried. Delivery will take from 60--90 days, .a.fter receipt, of the new truck at the Pakmor factory. Motion by Alderman Gau~hier to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 2'1', 19'82', as ¢orre'cted, seconded by Alderman Behm. Carried. Motion by Alderman.~B.renn~.n to approve the minutes of the special meeting of September 28, 1982~ as p~esen~ed~.seconded by Alderman Kellogg. Carried. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to move items 12 and 13 on the agenda, regarding public hearings on Gel Properties Annexation and Water Rate Increase to items 3 and 4~ seconded by Alderman Harris. Carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON GEL PROPERTIES ANNEXATION: This being the time and place advertised, a public hearing was held. No written protests were received by the City Clerk. Larry Herman, representing Gel Properties. I believe you should have a recom- mendation from the Planning Board. I regret that I wasn't at that meeting that they had with the Planning Board. I was not informed of it, so some of the remarks I will be making tonight should have been properly made at that meeting. The recommendation as I see it, is that they ask that the annexation be completed with a couple of additional recommendations. One seems to be dealing with the 1/9th park dedication and the other an increase in the width of the street. Those are the two questions that I have to address at this point in time. First - as to the park dedication. I don't know if we were treating it as a subdivision or not, John. John Mac Martin N~ we weren't. Larry Herman It would be strictly as an addition to the City by annexation. And, of course, the Council is not asked at this time to'approve the survey, as there was an occasional sale; and as an occasional sale we do not have a sub- division. I might read from the State statute on that regard. Since it was an occasional sale, under Section 76-3-207, M.C.A., there is a specific exemption from review of the particular act. Except as provided in Subsection {2), unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this chapter, the following divisions of land are not subdivisions under this chapter but are subject to the surveying requirements of 76-3-401 for division of land not amounting to subdivisions: {d) a single division of a parcel outside of platted subdivisions when the transaction is an occasional sale. pa e 2 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel That would be the exemption. Now as to the dedication of land to public, under 76-3-606, M.C.A., that in order to have a cash donation or park, it has to be a residential subdivision; and, of course, we do not have that in this case. However, I would point out that plans being developed for the building, will have some park areas in it. So as to the recommendation of the park dedi- cation, there would be no basis for it that I have been able to find by statute. Secondly - as to the road. It bothers me in the sense that we have 8th Avenue going up and creating a funnel, by giving additional right-of-way. I might read again from the State statute. This deals with additions to municipalities and it's Section 7-2-4203, M.C.A., imposition of conditions for approval of additions. Now I am not arguing that the Council can't put restrictions upon ..... State law says this: The Council has power by.ordinance to compel the owners of these additions to lay out streets~ avenues, and alleys, so as to have the same correspond in width and direction and be continuations of the streets, avenues, and alleys in the City or town or in the addition thereto contiguous to or near the proposed addition. Now, assuming again, going through the State statutes of annexation, I see no provision for park dedication for just annexing. If this were the case, every time gou would annex a residential lot you would be asking for park dedication. Now, assuming the the Council would decide to deny the annexation, it could be appealed to the District Court and the Court can review it and then order an annexation. It can order an annexation if these elements are present, as stated in Section 7-2-6752, M.C.A.: (a) essential municipal services and facilities are not available to the in- habitants of such territory and, as indicated by the Planning Board's study, this is the case: services are not available in that area. {b) the municipality is physically and financially able to provide municipal services to the area sought to be annexed, and (c} at least one-eighth of the aggp~gate external boundaries of the territory sought to be annexed is contiguous to the boundaries of the municipality. These three elements would be present in this case. So the Court probably would order annexation. However, again I am pointing that out just because I feel that the road request is not in the best interest of the City. While I agree that the road should be larger, it should have been started 20 years ago. With the school on the south and Cherry Hills on the north, you have got some real problems. I don't think realistically you will ever use it as an arterial (Sth Avenue). It would be my recommendation to the Council that the lot be annexed as indicated in the petition before the Council and that the recommendation from the Planning Board as to the park and the street be eliminated. I would entertain any motion at this time, or questions. Mayor Ehrlick John, do you have anything on this? page3 Minutes of the CitY Council of Laurel John MacMartin I could elaborate on the Planning Board's recommendation. We looked at and talked about the park dedication and felt that this tract of ground was going to be coming into the City, it was going to be impacting the City, and putting some demands upon its services. We realize that it was using an occational sale and therefore was exempt from subdivision requirements. However, in talking with members of the Department of Commerce and attorneys that have helped draft the various annexation ordinances, it was indicated to us that the City is perfectly legitimate and within its bounds of the annexation procedures, expecially under the Planned Community Development Act, which the City of Laurel uses to annex property, in asking for the parkland. I am not an attorney, so I am not here to debate Larry on the merits of it or not~ I am just reiterating what another attorney told me. On the merits of 8th Avenue, we went through a long and involved Comprehensive Plan and I agree with Larry, often times it seems ludicrous to take a small piece of property in the middle of a length of street for right-of-way.when you don't have the other right-of-way On top or at the bottom. It would have been nice to start 20 years ago~ but the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Transportation element of that, was not finished until 3½ years ago. ~One of the things that the Transportation Plan indicated, that in the future as Laurel continues to grow, 8th is going to function as a major collector. Right now it is designated as a truck route. At some.point in the future~ the City may be fa~e~ with needing additional right-of-way. So it was the staffs' position to say 8th Avenue is designated as a collector. O~r Subdivision Regulations call out that a oollector needs a total of 80 feet of right-of-way. Since. he is requesting annexation to the City, now is the time to take the right-of-way -- not to have to go baok later, find that we need to make some different ohanges and have to go back and pay for the property. The City of Billings is finding this out to be very evident on Grand Avenue. Eighth is not Grand, but I think the analogy is there. At some point in the future you are going to be carrying enough traffic, as the City grows, for seeing it oonne~t baok in. There is some debate whether or not that West Side arterial will ever be there. If that isn't there, you will be going over to the Golf Course Road. It will be connecting in and carrying heavier volumes of traffic and you will be needing more right-of-way there in the future and that's the basis for the Planning Board's recommendation. Alderman Brennan Do we have any right-of-way that wide yet on 8th Avenue? John MacMartin As far as I know, right now the right-of-way that we have taken, the re-plat that Herman Hauck did up there, we took along an 80 or 100 ft. strip that fronted on 8th Avenue, we required an 80 ft. wide dedioation. The Planning Board, if we go back in the reoords far enough, reoommended at the time Cherry Hills first oame in, that 80 ft. be taken. I think the Council decided not to do it at that time. So the Council has taken 80 ft. in one oase and hasn't taken it in another. Larry Herman John has made a good point. It's a point that I would ~ave to point out that the Council has been inconsistent, so it's creating a problem. Again, as I pointed out the statute on annexation, you do have the authority to insist the roads. But recall when I read that~ it's limited~ Now if it had been a oomplete new subdivision, I have no doubts in my mind, John, that we would be obligated to plat that way. But as I indicated here~ it says the Council has power, and it's very specific when talking about this, to compel the owners of these additions to lay out streets,, avenues~ and.alleys, so as to have the same corresponding width and direction and be continuations of the streets, avenues, and alleys in existence. page Minutes of the City Council of Laurel John MacMartin The only objection I would take to that, is that one of the many varieties of annexation law that is available, is the Planned Community Development Act, which the City uses. Larry Herman This is part of it that I am reading from. I would say that if this was a planned community, I would have no problem with your analogyY John MacMartin But that is the statute which the City uses. That is the statute under which the City said the annexation somebody had to be prepared. That is not part of 6270 or whatever it is, Larry. Larry Herman The other one I am reading from is part of ~7 and ~2 is also part of it. Mayor Ehrlick What is the will of the Council? Alderman Marvin Carter Are there any more comments from the floor? Alderman Kellogg What does Joe have to say? Joe Bra~ley I think, Larry, you might be mistaken. The Planned Unit Develop- ment is part ~7 not ~2. Larry Herman I am reading from both. Again, throughout ~2 there is no provision for parks or.dedications of parks in that section. It talked about contiguous and again what I am reading from there are~the conditions that the court for example~ this is on ~7 again,~7~2-6761, again the elements that the court wili find, are spelled out in that. One is that municipal services are not available in the area and the City can provide the services and that it is contiguous to the City. That meets all three of those elements. There is no provision in there for park dedications. Joe Bradley I looked through the subdivision regulations that Larry pointed out on the annexation provisions and John says that he talked to a lawyer from the Department of Commerce that I have been trying to get a hold of but he hasn't been available. I really can't see where we can require parks. I just don't see that in the statutes. John says that the people up in the Department of Commerce say that the City has a lot of power to require that, but I think if we are going to use that we probably should have an ordinance on the books that says from now on we are going to require parks, so that we do it for everybody. We don't have that on the books. But we do have the Comprehensive Plan for the 20 ft. right-of-way. Now that is in our ordinance books. The statute that Larry was reading from about keeping the streets the same width is from a different annexation alternative and the City can choose what alter- native to use. So it seems to me if the Council wants to make a decision tonight, that I can't find the authorization for parkland. But it may be that if I could get a hold of the people up in the Department of Commerce, they might be able to help out. Larry Herman What I might say along this tine, Joe, there is no reason why the City, when the plans for the building go up, can't indicate some park or recrea- tion area within the facility. And, of course, the plans that will be submitted do have that in there. Joe Bradley Would that be binding on the develoPer? Larry Herman Yes, because the plans will have to be approved by the City. The City is going to get some money, by the way. I am not t~ing to not give them money for parks, understand. But you will get a building fee and I don't know what that would be. It's based on the value of the structure going up which will be substantial. And you will be getting sewer and water hookup fees, which page S Minutes of the City Council of Laurel will be substantial. But what I am saying is, I don't feel you can get a park dedication, cash in lieu of parks or a dedicated park. I think this is probably a policy again the City should, on the streets, make a determination~ But I think they have already made a determination on 8th Avenue by its checkerboard development of it. If they would have been consistent in it, I would have no problem. So I would tend to fall back on the statute here, dealing in annexations generally. Joe Bradley It seems to me that we might have trouble with the parkland, but I think we are on better grounds requiring the 80 ft. right-of-way, but that is a policy decision up to the Council, if you think that is a good idea or not. We might be able to better justify that. This is the public hearing set for this. I don't think you're required to decide today, although Gel Properties would like you to, I know. Mayor Ehrlick Can we throw this back at the Planning Board again? Larry Herman I think you can, But we would like to get started on this, Mr. Mayor, as quickly as possible~ weather permitting. Joe Bradley One option you might consider is if you wanted to get a better answer on the park ground, we could probably get a hold of the lawyer John talked to at the Department of Commerce next week. Larry Herman I don't think you will find anything statutQrily on it, at least I couldn't. Joe Bradley And I can't find anything either. But he is of the opinion that the City has great power. It's just that I think probably he means that if we had an ordinance saying we require parkland, then maybe we could. Larry Herman I think the other thing too, I think the power lies in if you have a subdivision by definition. I have no doubt in my mind that you could do it then. But here you have got one lot. I guess an analogy to this might be, take Sid's Place down here if you were to annex that~ and try to get park dedication on it. It just doesn't make sense, on one lot coming in. But, again you can require in the plans some area set aside as recreation in the plans itself. Which again, as I pointed out, will be done. And the plans would be approved by the City. But that is after the annexation. Alderman Behm This property amounts to a City block or more doesn't it? Larry Herman No. Half of the Schwenneker property. Alderman Behm Isn't that about a 14-acre parcel? Larry Herman Yes, but only one part is owned by Gel Properties. Joe Bradley Another question I had, Larry, was the court review and decision that you are referring to talks about if the City doesn't annex it after the resident freeholders have properly petitioned the governing body. Larry Herman The owner of the property has petitioned. Joe Bradley Is he a resident? Larry Herman No. Joe Bradley I think that's what they are referring to. Larry Herman I don't know, that might be subject to some interpretation. Discussion between Larry Herman and Joe Bradley. page 6 Larry Peterson 1.83 acres. MinUtes of the City Council of Laurel Duane, to answer your question, you're asking to annex about Larry Herman I think it's to the benefit of the City. Mayor Ehrlick Maybe I will throw this back to the Council. What does the Council want to do with this then? Alderman Marvin Carter Right now we are overtaxed with little parks, tiny little parcels of parks that we are constantly taking care of and we can't handle them as it is and I can't see us addressing this area. I would rather see us give them the land and say put a park within the area of your develop- ment. Joe Bradley I think, John, the Planning Board's recommendation was a cash donation in lieu of a park, Alderman Behm Which has been done in the past in some areas. Larry Herman Again, you're dealing with.a subdivision. I frankly don't think you can go. As I say, you can in the plans and there will be a park area. Alderman Kellogg I have no qualms with the park, because it's such a small area. But the 20 ft. of right-of-way -, 20 years ago the people didn't see down the road far enough to start it. Maybe now is the time to. If it's there and we never use it, at least we have the viable source' to use it. Alderman Marvin Carter Question to John. On that 20 ft. of right-of-way, where would that put it at the West School? Front door, if you went 20 ft. right-of-way all the way through. The City certainly isn't buying the West School 20 years down the road because we will never have that kind of money. John MacMartin No, but it allows for movement of the (unintelligible}. You never end up building a street as wide as your entire right-of-way. The purpose of the total width of a right-of-way is to allow for the movement of utilities as the street is widened. Widening of right turn and left turn lanes, placement of utilities that go behind the sidewalk, and location of the sidewalk. Typically even on an 80 ft. wide right-of-way, by the time you get behind the sidewalk, you're going to have 4 to 5 ft., maybe 10 ft., behind each sidewalk that is still public right-of-way. But it's there so that the City has got the ability to function and move the utilities and public amenities or public interest structure around within that right-of-way. Larry Herman Again, I can't argue with John. Ail that I can say is that it should have been done in this area some time ago. What I think the Council should do is, if you are going to have your streets at a certain width, pass an ordinance that says in the future all streets will be of a certain width and then go by it. If you make an exception here, starting all at once, I think you are creating a problem. You already have a problem. If you do try to put in 8th Avenue you are going to have some strange -- I don't know if you have been on 7th Street trying to get down from the Post Office to 7th Street, you have got some real problems there. You've got some on hollywood, some set backs, some real problems. Here, you have got the school on the south, Cherry Hills on the north and you are going to create a funnel in the center. If you go up in Cherry Hills and some of the other areas and widen them, you are going to have them right on your doorsteps. It just won't be practical. The same way with the south part down by Main Street, you have got the same problem. You have got the ditch on the west side, that you have got to cover if you are going to use it as right-of-way~ John MaoMartin As Lonnie pointed out, you have got to start someplace. As far as adopting it by ordinance, the Transportation portion of the Comprehensive Plan page 7 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel was something that we went through a great deal of debate to get adopted and subsequent to the adoption of the plan by resolution of the Council setting that as the Transportation Plan that we were going to follow. The Council adopted by ordinance the subdivision regulations and in there the regulations call out the fact that collector streets will dedicate 80 ft. of right-of-way, and all that we are reacting to is the fact that the Transportation Plan that was adopted by the Council is identified as a collector and that the subdivision ordinance which governs all of the streets in the town, whether they come in through subdivisions, annexations or any other design~ calls for collectors to be 80 ft. wide. Larry Herman If you are going to do that you should collect from both sides of the street. You're taking from one ownership interest completely, If you want to do it in the future then say so~ but at this point you haven't said so, I think if you go from this point on, pass an ordinance that says you will make it for all future annexations. But you have no precedence at this point. In fact your precedence has been just the opposite. You have allowed the street to go in as it is. You have created a precedence. Alderman Gauthier John, when was that plan adopted? John MacMartin August~ 1979. Cherry Hills preceded it. There was no plan on which to base or get the right-of-way from Cherry Hills I. Willow Creek Subdi- vision came after the adoption of the plan and we took the right-of-way on Willow Creek Subdivision. Alderman Gauthier Is Willow Creek the only one that has been in since the adoption? John MacMartin Along 8th Avenue, that's correct. Larry Herman Again, the analogy there is that you have a full subdivision. You are taking it from both sides of the street. I would ask the Council to annex it, without those two exceptions. I think they are on shaky grounds in the first place. Number one, because there hasn't been a firm precedence by action created. Secondly, I think there is some legal argument that it is not permissable at this point. Alderman Behm Right now it may not be a full subdivision, but it has the potential of being a full subdivision for a stretch of about two blocks, from 7th to 9th. Plus we have about a four-block stretch south of that from 4th down to old Highway 10, which would be along that collector route. Larry Herman But you have your same problem there, in that you're going to have a funnel for about two blocks, is what I am saying, Duane. That's all you will have is about two blocks of funneling. Alderman Behm If we take the recommendation we will have an hour-glass type thing. Larry Herman That's exactly What you will have if you take the recommendation. It just won't be practical to function, is what I am saying. Unless you go up and take some of the sidewalks out and get them right up to the doorsteps. You would have from Main Street up to 8th, a few people irate at you. Alderman Brennan They are doing it in Billings all of the time. Larry Herman Except, in some cases you have the whole boulevard to take. Mayor Ehrlick If we don't take this right-of-way, then we got to go back and give the other guy his right-of-way back, don't we? page 8 Larry Herman Joe Bradley Minutes of the City Council of Laurel No. You're in a different area altogether, Albert. Was that other right-of-way taken? Alderman Behm Just north of there, about two blocks. Larry Herman That was off to the far west though. Joe Bradley Well, you hope to treat everybody equal. Larry says that from their point of view we don!t have a (unintelligible). I think we probably can. We do have the ordinances and this isn't the first annexation since the act was passed. It didn,t apply before then, but we do have something on the books, whereas to parkland we don't have anything on the books. So I really think this is just a policy decision for you to make. Larry Herman I would ask the Council to not accept the recommendations on this one, but go on record saying from this point on we will. That way anybody that comes in there is no question as to what they have to come up with. But you are going to have an hour-glass there now~ there is no question about it. Alderman Kell.ogg Is it proper to make a motion at the public hearing? Mayor Ehrlick I think I will close this and we will close it for discussion among the 'CoUncil. Alderman Gauthier Should ask if there is anyone else who wants to speak. Mayor Ehrlick Is there anyone else out there who wants to speak on that? Then we will close it for the Council. Larry Peterson Is Mr. Schwenneker here? Mr. Schwenneker Yes. Larry Peterson Do you want to address your concern right now? Mr. Schwenneker Yes, I would like to mention about Gel Properties. I am concerned about that natural drainage system which I live on 804 8th Avenue, just borders this Gel development. It has a natural drainage right now and as soon as they start building, where is that drainage going to go? Larry Herman I might point out that it's really a proper question, but not at this hearing, which is an annexation hearing. Mr. Schwenneker I would think now would be the time to address it, before you start building. Larry Herman It would come up under the building phase. Right now we are talking about whether we should annex or not annex. You brought up that question, as I recall, when they were talking about re-zoning it and I think that would be a problem they will have to meet in their building phase. Mr. Schwenneker Yes, I have brought this up several times. You are aware of where I live and my neighbor who is to the south of there, and when we get moisture we have nothing but a lake there. Ed McDonnell~ Gel Properties I would like to say that I visited with Larry Peterson about this last week and he felt that by putting just a ditch on the north side of our property to get the drainage back to the west side of our property it would take care of the drainage situation and so I agreed, if it would be agreeable to you guys. Mr. Schwenneker Is that going to be addressed to the Council? I mean will it be put in the minutes? page 9 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Mayor Ehrlick That will be in the minutes, you betcha. Mr. Schwenneker The Council will be aware of that? Mayor Ehrlick Is there anything else? I think we will just go ahead and if the Council wants to discuss it, fine. I will just close it and let the Council decide on it, Larry. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter that we accept Gel Properties into the City~ (Tract lB, C/S 2147), and that We eliminate the park request and the 20 ft. right-of-way. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Alderm~.n Brennan that we accept it (Tract lB, C/S 2147), eliminate the park property, but stick with the additional 20 ft. of right-of-way, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. Alderman Harris John~ would it be feasible to come up with a, on this right-of- way, a less amount of footage for right-of-way. Since 8th Avenue has been checkerboard, is that feasible? John MacMartin Larry Peterson and I talked about that and we looked at it at great length, and we just felt that our recommendation and subsequently the recommendation that I made to the Planning Board, which came to you, was to take the 20 ft. that our ordinances recommend. We have attempted in a couple of areas to do other things and we felt that in a case where we have the oppor- tunity to take the right-of-way, we would request that the full right-of-way be taken. Alderman Marvin Carter On this 20 ft. are we going to make it all super highway there? Is there going to be a three-lane at that point and we jump down into two lane and up above two lane? What are we going to do with it, John? John MacMartin It will be very similar to what exists in the other parts of town, Marvin. There are some parts in the older part of town where you have got very, very wide right-of-ways. In some cases the public right-of-way along some of the more south streets in town extends 15 ft. behind the sidewalk. The City owns that property and the property owner maintains it, waters it, cuts the grass, everything else, but it is public right-of-way. The public has got the ability to go in and widen it and build a wide street at the time it becomes necessary. What I am suggesting you do on this and the reason of the Planning Board, we aren't going to build a three-lane street for 200 ft. or an 80 ft. segment. But we are suggesting that you take the right-of-way, require buildings to be set back from that right-of-way line. There is another crucial part of that right- of-way. Buildings have to be set back from the right-of-way line. So that in the future when and if we need to start widening the street we don't have to buy that extra 20 ft. of right-of-way there. The buildings will be already set back to that right-of-way line and we have got the advantage then of trying to match up. Yes, it becomes a hodge-podge. Grand Avenue, for instance, is going to be a hodge-podge if and when they ever widen it. But again this will lessen the expenditure of public funds in the future. Larry Herman I might Suggest, if that's what you want to do, and I disagree with the Council in doing it. What you should call it, is if you want an ease- ment for a boulevard, call it easement for a boulevard. Because I don't think you will ever use it. That's what you have all up and down the street is a public boulevard. Make an easement for a boulevard and then you can just grant an easement. I would rather see that than just an out-and-out grant. page l0 Mayor Ehrlick here? Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Is there anything else in way of discussion with the Council Joe Bradley John, you said under our City ordinances we use the Planned Com- munity Development alternative and have all these plans been done? Long range plans as required in. the State statutes about extension of service. Has that all been complied with? John MacMartin Yes.. Gel Properties submitted a plan that you reviewed as per Planned Community Development Act. That's what the Planning Board reviewed and made its recommendation upon to the City Council. Joe Bradley If that's the alternative we do use, then the State laws provide that the Council has to receive for a period after this public hearing any written expression of protest or approval. And it says that the governing body has authority to adopt an ordinance extending the corporate limits no sooner than seven days and no later than sixty days foliowing this hearing; So we're going to have to wait at least a week before you actually annex the property. Larry Herman I think what you can do is adopt it with an effective date. Then they would have to write a protest within that effective date. Joe Bradley It says that at any regular or special meeting held no sooner than seven days and no later than sixty days following such public hearing. So the meeting would have to be held then. You can pass an ordinance of annexation and the ordinance shall fix the effective date of annexation. But I don't think it can be passed until another meeting is held no sooner than seven days after this hearing. Larry Herman Given notice of this hearing is under what section? Joe Bradley 7-2-4701. Alderman Marvin Carter One other comment, that I think Larry brought it out. I'll address it to John, whoever wants to handle it, Larry or John. We are taking 20 ft. from this property, and I think the point was why not take it equal? I mean, you are not going across the street and asking that property owners on the other side of 8th Avenue to give up 5, 6, 10 ft., etc. Why do we all of a sudden ask one property owner to give up a great parcel of his land for this area, when in essence everybody who uses it should be giving up a little? John MacMartin This is the parcel that is requesting annexation. It is the parcel where right,of-way can be obtained. It may not be fair, but development is not always fair. Developers are not always treated equally. This is the place where we have the opportunity to get the right-of-way and that is the recommendation that the Planning Board made to the Council. Larry Herman Do you want it as right-of-way or do you want it as boulevard? John MacMartin No. We want the right-of-way. There is a difference. The Planning Board is not interested in --- our recommendation to the Planning Board was not made for boulevards. There are building setbacks that are required. Mayor Ehrlick The other side is already annexed, so you can't very well go hack and get that. That's already done. Larry Herman It's still public right-of-way. I frankly think that would be the approach of the Council. You've already done it up and down the streets. Alderman Kellogg Joe, would my motion have been out of order~ page ll Minutes of the City Council of Laurel out of order. I think it should be withdrawn and to wait at least seven days to hold another is supposed to consider all the things heard at the meeting today and then any other expressions of approval or disapproval received. Mayor Ehrlick We will just bring this back up at the next regular Council meeting. That way the Council can consider it then. Alderman Behm Joe, if we don't have an ordinance, haven't we got some policy that we have followed in the past on this park dedication, either cash donation or land? Joe Bradley I couldn't tell you about policy in the past. Because I haven't been here that long. But under the subdivision laws that is specifically in there that we do get a certain area of any subdivided place for parkland or cash donation. For annexations, I don't know about that. John MacMartin We get it for subdivisions and Larry is very right when he says he does not know of an ordinance, and Joe too, does not know of an ordinance that the Council has adopted in regards to annexations. Mayor Ehrlick What we would have to do is come up with an ordinance then? Joe Bradley If you want to do that, then under the Planned Community Development Act we could. Mayor Ehrlick Why don't we just close this then and you bring up the ordinance at the next Council meeting. Lar~ Herman I might point out that you can't make it retroactive. I have some doubts too that you can do it on just a parcel of land that is not subdivided. Alderman Behm Will this hearing tonight, Albert, conclude any pro or con protest for the annexation? Then the next meeting will just be a vote of the Council to annex it. Mayor Ehrlick Yes, it will be a vote of the Council. Joe Bradley No. There is a period provided in this development act that for twenty days the Clerk and the Council can receive written protests. Then at the next meeting we can consider it all in making a decision. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER RATE INCREASE: This being the time and place advertised, a public hearing was held. No written protests were received by the City Clerk. Alderman Kellogg The Public Utilities Committee has recommended that the City Council raise the water revenue by 12%. This is to balance the budget that we are currently working with, because of the increase of expenses in chemicals, clamps and increase in labor that goes into the water systems. When people think of water, they think of just of the water plant. There are numerous things that go into it -- the water reservoir and all of the lines. Some of the lines have been put in many years ago and they are deteriorating and they increase the cost of operating the entire system. Dave has some facts and figures here for anybody that's interested that is here for the water hearing. They can Joe Bradley I think it is the second withdrawn and we have meeting. Alderman Brennan withdrew his Alderman Kellogg withdrew his Joe Bradley The statute says that motion. Second. the Council page 12 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel look these over and ask the Council any questions that they may have. I ask that when you ask a question or get up to speak that you give your name so that it will be on the record. Dave Michael passed out informational material regarding facts and figures on the proposed water rate increase. Alex Henry Mr. Mayor, does the Council have a hookup charge when they annex a piece of land? Or does the City go up and put the water in it and charge us for it, the same as other people? Mayor Ehrlick I don't know, do we have a hookup charge for the water? Dave Michael No. Not on water. Mayor Ehrlick They put their own water lines in. Dave Michael The developer has to install the water lines. Alex Henry Why don't we have a hookup charge? Dave Michael Because the PSC won't allow it. Alex Henry I have been living here in Laurel for 50 yea~s or more and I have paid for two water plants. Somebody comes along and builds a house up there and. he doesn't have to pay a thing on the water plant, ~but yet the plant has to be enlarged to take care of him. So why should I have to pay for the next guy? I can't see that. I don't think it's quite right. Alderman Brennan I think what he means is on the sewer. Mayor .Ehr.~ick I knew we had it for sewer~ but I didn't think we had it for water. Alex ~enry I think you should have the water hookup, because there isn't any reason why you should charge the people who have paid for two plants and then somebody comes along and builds a house and wants to hook on. He gets to hook on for free. The plant is already there, we have already paid for the plant. If you would have done that, there wouldn't be a need for all these extra water raises. Mayor Ehrlick The Public Service Commission wouldn't OK anything like that, would they? Joe Bradley I am not sure. Mayor Ehrlick Just when they come in to be annexed, he figures they should pay a hookup charge. Joe Bradley I don't know if that would be acceptable or not. We do have the one fee, is this the same that they are complaining about out in Fox Subdivision? Mayor Ehrlick No. That is sewer hookup. Joe Bradley Well I would guess that if you can charge it on one, you could probably charge it on the other. But you have to have a reason for charging it. That one was to take care of the expanded service required by the sewage plant. I suppose under similar conditions you could charge a similar fee for water hookup. Dave Michael I believe~ but I might be mistaken~ but in 1977 under the water rate at that time, I believe a water hookup was asked for and FSC denied it. Joe Bradley We could track that down and see. Mayor Ehrlick I think it would be something to check into, that's for sure. Dave Michael It seems like they tried to get a hookup charge for water and if I remember correctly, PSC denied it. page 13 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Mayor Ehrlick Why don't we check it out and see. Maybe we can find out. Alderman Behm Dave, prior to about the last 5 or 6 years, didn't the City used to buy the water lines to a new subdivision? Dave Michael Up to the time Cherry Hills, even before that time, the City did provide some assistance to developers. But as costs grew and the City's finances wasn't oapable to do it, the City quit assisting developers in providing lines. Mayor Ehrlick Dave, I can tell you what happened when I built my house. They line down and I had to petition all the lots in order to get the there. I had to get everybody to sign it so it could be added on ran the water water line in to our taxes. Alderman Behm But the City provided it. Mayor Ehrlick The City provided it, yes, but we had to pay Yor it. Alderman Behm Whereas now the new people coming into the new subdivision are in effect paying for their water line, etc., because that is required to be put in by the developers. Alex Henry I don't think it's right for people to come in there and hook on to the line and not pay for~any of the plant and they are going to use the plant the same as I am and I have paid for my share of it. Mayor Ehrlick I think it's something worth checking into. Alderman Kellogg Are there any other questions? Alex Henry I just t~ought that we are paying enough for water as it is now. Dave Gauslow Dave, isn't this just to cover the increase in expenses and not the actual plant itself? Dave Michael There is no expansion of the plant. It's for the expenses for the whole water system. Mayor Ehrlick Our clamps alone have doubIed in price in the past year. Is there anybody else? I guess we wit1 close this and let the Council decide what they are going to do on this then. Would I entertain a motion on this here? Joe Bradley You could now or anytime up to 30 days. Alderman Kellogg How should the motion read? Joe Bradley The statutes just talk about the governing body shall issue its decision whether to raise the rates this 12% or not. So probably by resolution we could do it and then file it with the clerk. RESOLUTION NO. 1941 RAISING CITY WATER RATES AND CHARGES SO AS TO INCREASE TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES NOT TO EXCEED 12%. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Resolution No. 1941 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Behm. Carried. CORRESPONDENCE: Received a letter from Yellowstone County Solid Waste Disposal Board regarding a public meeting on Thursday, October 21, 1982, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 403 of the Yellowstone County Courthouse, to discuss interest in a solid waste reoovery facility to serve the County, municipalities in the County, and the area immediately adjacent to the County. page 14 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Received a letter from the City's insurance carrier, USF&G, regarding Bruce Thompson~s broken glasses at the swimming pool. This was referred to the Park Committee. Received a letter from Douglas D. Howard, associated with Richard W. Heard, Attorney, regarding a wage cIaim by Judge Walter Menello. This was referred to the Budget/Finance Committee. CLAIMS: Statement of Items Released for Payment for the Month of September was presented for review and approval. Motion by Alderman Behm that the claims for the month of September be approved for payment as presented, seconded by Alderman Gauthier. Carried. Darryl Carpenter - Truck Regulations not present ORDINANCE NO. 693-A {second reading) AMENDING SECTION 11.80.010, LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, AND SECTION 11.80.010 OF ORDINANCE NO. 69B IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO BE ENGINEER FOR SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AT THE OPTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Ordinance No. 69B-A be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Harris. Upon taking a roll call vote, all aldermen present voted, "Yes." ORDINANCE NO. 715 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.20 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODES, RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND AUXILIARY POLICE FORCE. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Ordinance No. 718 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Upon taking a roll call vote, all aldermen present voted, "Yes." A resolution was presented regarding the Auxiliary Police and Reserve Officers and setting the maximum of 25 officers. RESOLUTION NO. 1942 CREATING AN AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER STATUS AND A RESERVE POLICE OFFICER STATUS FOR THE CITY OF LAUREL. Motion by Alderman Brennan that Resolution No. 19~2 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Behm. Carried, LARRY PETERSON - GARBAGE TRUCKS: At the iast meeting the Council gave approval for the City to buy a new truck and packer and to reoutfit one of our existing trucks for a total expenditure of $76,203. The following day I was writing an authorization letter to Johnson Distributing and noticed a footnote at the bottom of the bid, if we choose to reoutfit the GMC we would need to shorten the frame for an additional cost of $500. I am asking for the additional $500 to shorten that frame. Discussion. rase 15 Minutes of the City CoUncil of Laurel Motion by Alderman Kellog~ to approve the $500 expenditure to shorten the GMC truck frame, seconded by Alderman Harris. Carried. LARRY PETERSON -LDS CHURCH CURB & GUTTER: Mr. Peterson reported that they have awarded a contract to Barry O'Leary and they should begin construction by the end of this week~ weather permitting. JOE BRADLEY - FLOOD PLAIN: The last Council meeting the Council tabled the matter of the flood plain ordinance and requested me to get oopies of the Yel- lowstone County ordinance. We do have two copies of the Yellowstone County ordinance now, which are in the Clerk's office. We may as well leave it on the table and anytime you want to get down and look through it you can and maybe bring it up at the next Council meeting. Discussion. COMMITTEE REPORTS: License Committee Bill Brennan presented the minutes of September 28, 1982. Business license applications are as follows: Darryl Carpenter dba Farmer-Stockman Supply. This was not approved by the Council because the fire inspection has not been done. Floyd Morton dba.Chuck's Welding Service. The committee referred this to the City-County Planning Board. Norman Apfel dba Action Heating. Committee recommends Council approval of a transient license. Motion b.y Alderman. Br~.n.nan to approve a transient license for Norman Apfel dba Action Heating, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. Carried. Robert Hendrickson dba Midwest Software, Inc. This was not approved by the Council because the fire inspection is pending on the completion of his construction. Clint Porter dba Abbey Carpets. The fire inspection has been completed and the committee recommends approval. Motion by Alderman Brennan to approve a business license for Clint Porter dba Abbey Carpets, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. Carried. Dorothy Patterson dba Another Man's Treasure. The fire inspection has been completed and the committee recommends approval. Motion by Alderman Brennan to approve a business license for Dorothy Patterson dba Another Man's Treasure, seconded by Alderman Behm. Carried. Street & Alley Committee Marvin Carter presented and reviewed the committee minutes of September 30, 1982. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to accept and approve the committee minutes of September 30, 1982, seconded by Alderman Harris. Carried. Gambling Committee Peg Kamerzel presented and reviewed the committee minutes of October 1, 1982. Discussion. There was discussion regarding the possibility of requiring the Yellowstone Casino to have a business license, along with the bingo license. This matter was referred to the License Committee. page 16 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Motion by Alderman Brennan to accept the Gambling Committee report, seconded by Alderman Harris. Carried, with Alderman Kellogg voting, "No." Mike Bloom informed the Council that in order to police the gambling, they may send an underoover man periodically to play the games. Martin Carter There was a motion tabled at the last meeting in referenoe to the Sohwan man. I don't know if that is ready to come off the table. Joe Bradley We called into Billings to find out what they do, and they said that he does buy a City lioense in Billings. I think maybe part of the problem ~n the past was we were writing directly to the Schwan's head company asking them to buy a City license, whereas Billings just licenses that local distri- butor. I did send a letter to him and an application for a license and I invited him to apply. I said that it would go before the Licensing Committee and he could come down and make any arguments he wants. We haven't heard Daok from him and somehow that letter slipped out without going certified. I sent another one certified on Monday and we are going to have to wait this week until that comes back or signs for it to prove that he got it. If he does submit it to the Licensing Committee then the committee can consider it. If he doesn't and it comes back unclaimed we will just have to direct the police to impound him and take a bond for violation of our City ordinance. .They will have to post a bond, then come in and plead guilty or not guilty and make him fight it before the judge. We will have to wait a little while longer before we can act. Jim Smith I would like to make a suggestion to the Council that consideration be given to, maybe this has already been brought up, reconsider a licensing procedure to exempt some people from having a license. Which I would suggest be non-profit organizations and also have temporary license for people that come in here on one night stands. Joe Bradley We do have a transient merchant license now and it's good only on certain dates. Discussion regarding non-profit organizations, sidewalk sales, and people in the park on the 4th of July. The Mayor referred this to the Licensing Committee. Marvin Carter I have a resolution that I would like to present to the Council. After the last meeting we discussed the purchase of the Bomag Compactor, garbage truck and two packers. At that time we mentioned to Don to talk to the banks regarding financing. I would like to compliment the Yellowstone Bank on their bid of 10.95%, which will give us a savings of about $5,000 a year. We were looking at 12% and 14½% by the companies that were awarded the bid. RESOLUTION NO. 1943 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH YELLOWSTONE BANK TO PAY FOR A BOMAG COMPACTOR AND A GARBAGE TRUCK AND TWO (2) PAKMOR PACKERS FROM THE GARBAGE FUND. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter that Resolution No. 1943 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. Carried. Larry Peterson reported that the Bomag Compactor will be at the Laurel landfill tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Western Equipment is having their representative there, the Bomag equipment representative will be there, and also they are flying in the operator from Libby, Montana~ who has been operating their Bomag compactor pa e Z7 MinUtes of the City Council of Laurel for six years. He will be giving instructional time to our crew. Peg Kamerzel requested permission to leave the State October llth through 25th. Motion by Alderman Kellogg to grant Peg Kamerzel permission to leave the State October llth through 25th, seconded by Alderman Marvin Carter. Carried. Mike Bloom - Truck Routes Section 10.51.010 indicates routes to be 1st Avenue north and south and Bth Avenue only. it doesn't mention Main Street and 12th Street. It might behoove us tO expedite making an amendment to that so we can enforce that without getting sued for false arrest. Discussion including the Transportation Plan. This was referred to Joe Bradley. Larry Peterson - New Garbage Truck Johnson Ford indicated that the new Ford truck, for the garbage truck, to be delivered in 60--90 days to the Pakmor factory. Pakmor has guaranteed delivery within 60 days after arrival of that truck. We will be talking to them about reoutfitting one of our existing trucks first. Johnson Ford had no idea it would take that long to get a truck here. Larry also mentioned that the landfill hours have not been observed the past week due to the death of Lud Erlenbach's wife. Lonnie Kellogg - Street. Lights Montana Power recently installed lights in the downtown business dis'trict' and to me they did an excellent job. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that we send Montana Power a letter commending them on a fine job they did on the installation of the lights, seconded by Alderman Marvin Carter. Carried. Marvin Carter - New Garbage Rate I noticed that we aren't on the new garbage rate yet. It was reported by the Clerk that it will be on the October billing. Joe Bradley - Airport Authority John Smith, Chairman of the Airport Authority, wanted me to mention that apparently when the Airport Authority was originally set up~ the City neglected to transfer the property to the Airport Authority. We have to actually give them the airport property. That's why the Council was faced with that special meeting passing that grant the other day, because the FAA won't deal with the Airport Authority, they will only deal through the Council until it is properly constituted. So the Council will be faced with a resolution to transfer the property sooner or later. But it is also the Council's second chance to think about the Airport Authority. Discussion. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. gpproved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 19th day of October, 1982. Donald L. Hackmann, City Clerk