Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 06.29.2010 MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP JUNE 29, 2010 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 June 29, 2010. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: _x Emelie Eaton _x_ Doug Poehls _x_ Kate Hart _x_ Mark Mace _x Chuck Rodgers _x_ Chuck Dickerson _x Alex Wilkins x Norm Stamper OTHERS PRESENT: Sam Painter James Caniglia Bill Sheridan Shirley Ewan Kurt Markegard Jan Faught Public Input (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. There was none. General items • Appointment: Murl Williams to the Laurel Airport Authority for a five -year term ending June 30, 2015 The appointment will be on the July 6 council agenda. Planning: • Medical marijuana City Planner James Caniglia stated that the Planning Board discussed the issue and recommended some regulations. On March 16 the council approved a moratorium for medical marijuana businesses, and the moratorium could be extended another six months through a resolution. The Planning Board recommended restricting medical marijuana in terms of zoning and distance from each other by allowing retail sales only in commercial areas and growing operations only in industrial areas. Retail businesses would be required to be at least 1,000 feet from schools, churches, parks, and day cares, which greatly limits the available areas. The council reviewed a map, which showed bubble areas in commercial areas that would not allow businesses. With the proposed regulations, businesses could only be located past Elm or past 5 Avenue and would have to be 1,000 feet from each other. There probably could not be more than three medical marijuana businesses in the city. Growing of medical marijuana would be restricted to industrial areas, largely because of mold and fire hazards that have been a major problem with the growing operations. Retail businesses could be in the central business district, in community commercial and in highway commercial as long as the 1,000 foot buffers are met. James stated that business licensing regulations will be proposed soon, but the Planning Board strictly addressed the land use issues. Council Workshop Minutes of June 29, 2010 There was discussion regarding the options to regulate, banning medical marijuana as per Federal regulations, the possibility of losing Federal funding, and the need to extend the moratorium for six months to find out where the state legislature stands before the council makes a decision. • Energy Grant Report James has not yet received the Energy Efficiency Block Grant documents, but he received confirmation that the city received the grant for $134,000. The city will provide the $8,000 match from the Building Fund. The grant provides eight inches of insulation in the ceilings. The boiler in the crawl space will be out of use and a trench will be built from the new boiler to heat the building. A flash heater will be used to heat water for the bathroom instead of the water heater in the crawl space. There will be a temperature control system for the whole building. The building will be air conditioned with controlled temperatures that can be regulated at specific times of the day. All new windows will be installed in city hall. The contract should be received prior to the next council workshop. Public Works Department: • Discussion — Right -of -way easement for YVEC Kurt Markegard stated that YVEC requested an easement from Buffalo Trail Road across city -owned land north of the container site fence. This is land that the council previously approved for a road for a landowner and a lessee of the land, Riverside Sand & Gravel. Kurt's concern for the right -of -way easement is that the roadway has not been completed yet. The city met with Riverside Sand & Gravel to discuss the road project and find out when paving would be completed. Documents are being drafted to set a September 1st deadline. If the council approves this, Kurt suggested that the agreement with Riverside Sand & Gravel be considered with the September 1 deadline. The easement would provide the city with beneficial use of true 3 -phase power to the four acres north of the container site. This would allow the city to hook the cardboard compactor to 3 -phase and to install a larger compactor site. Kurt stated that the power lines could impact the Airport Authority. Thor Anderson, from Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, spoke regarding the impact of the proposed power lines to the Airport Authority. He stated that the location of the proposed power line triggers review by the FAA for protection of the air space. Part 77 of Federal Regulations addresses air space and the protection of air space for safe air navigation. Under those rules, any construction or alteration within 2,000 feet of an airport such as Laurel Municipal Airport that also penetrates a surface that is sloped 100 to 1 from the point closest to runway from this site is subject to airspace review. The airspace review has three different outcomes; first, FAA might have no objection to construction; second, FAA does have some concerns but the proposed construction can proceed if they like the constructed features, such as cell phone towers, as that type of modification will make air navigation safe. Thor reviewed some exhibits of the Airport affected area, the proposed power line and the proposed easement stretch and gave further explanation. The utility company had not initiated a review, but after conversations with YVEC and with FAA, YVEC decided to go through the review and delay the construction project until FAA reviews the proposed construction. YVEC also decided to abide with whatever FAA recommends. One outcome may be that at least portions of the line will need to be buried, and YVEC is willing to go forward with that. As long as the utility follows any FAA recommendation, the Airport Authority will not be opposed to an easement being issued. If the council decides to grant an easement, it should be subject 2 Council Workshop Minutes of June 29, 2010 to FAA approval of the construction and follow FAA's recommendation. Thor stated that future plans for the airport make it more necessary for the power line to be evaluated by the FAA. There was discussion regarding underground installation of utility lines. The resolution and agreement will be revised to state that it would be approved according to the recommendation from the FAA. • Resolution — Agreement between Yellowstone County and the City of Laurel regarding processing of headstones for the Yellowstone County Veterans' Cemetery Kurt Markegard explained that the City of Laurel will no longer be servicing the Yellowstone County Veterans' Cemetery as far as burials, maintenance, sprinkler, irrigation, landscaping, etc. The County requested that the city continue to provide a place for families of deceased veterans to arrange for the application and order the headstones. The agreement does not specify this but also to facilitate the burials of veterans to the Yellowstone County Veterans' Cemetery. In exchange, the County would reimburse the city for $50 per interment. Kurt stated that it is best for the city to provide those services in Laurel. He stated that Cheryll Lund does a great job and has been commended by the Veteran's Cemetery Board for her work. Kurt will contact the County to discuss concerns about the burials, and an amended document could be distributed soon. • Discussion — Water fill station Kurt stated that the council directed the Public Works Department to look into a water fill station last January in lieu of consideration of the other one in Laurel shutting down. Great West Engineering prepared a document with site plans and figures for the council's review. He asked for direction regarding whether or not to go forward with the fill station. The current owner of the fill station is meeting the needs of the community and has not shut down the facility. Only a few people have requested that the city install a fill station. Kurt stated that the water fill station does not rank high in the needs assessment for the water system at this time, and his professional recommendation is not to proceed. Doug Poehls stated that the city should put this on the shelf in the case of an emergency for citizens outside the city. He cannot feel comfortable spending the taxpayers' money to provide a water fill station for citizens outside the city when there is one available. Chuck Dickerson and Chuck Rodgers stated agreement with Doug's statements. • Resolution — Change Order No. 9 with COP Construction for additional HVAC improvements at the Water Treatment Plant Kurt explained the need for HVAC improvements for the high service pump area and chlorine room at the Water Treatment Plant to address the heat issues created by the VFD's. The change order is for $47,688.00 and will be on the July 6th council agenda. Executive Review: • Resolution No. R10 -77: Resolution of the City Council to create a position called the Chief - Emergency Medical Services and to adopt a job description for such position. Mayor Olson stated that it will be on the council agenda next week as council action was postponed to July 6th at the council meeting on June 15 Mayor Olson asked for public input, and there was no response. 3 Council Workshop Minutes of June 29, 2010 Doug Poehls reported on last night's Emergency Services Committee meeting. About 60 people attended the meeting. Once the people were informed that the city did not intend to close the Laurel Ambulance, the level of concern went down. In the discussion, people testified that the job description is fine except for the requirement that the director be a paramedic. Two doctors have different opinions, with one saying that a paramedic is not necessary and the other saying that a paramedic is necessary. There was discussion regarding the issue at the committee meeting. The consensus of the committee and the motion made at the meeting was to ask the council to pull the resolution from next Tuesday's council agenda for further review of the job description by the committee. The committee also wants to begin the process of obtaining a medical director. Mayor Olson stated that, since the resolution was postponed to a date certain on July 6 according to the rules, it cannot be removed. The options would be to vote it down or to delay further action by choosing a date certain to give the Emergency Services Committee adequate time to consider it. There was further discussion regarding the process to delay the vote, the need for review of the job description, voting the resolution down and then presenting the job description in the future, and having a member of the successful side bring the item up for consideration. That motion would have to be approved and then the council could reconsider the item. Chuck Dickerson asked for clarification if the reason it cannot be pulled is because it is date sensitive. Sam explained that the council initially had a motion to approve the job description, the motion was seconded, and it was ready for a decision. The next action for the council was a decision on that motion. A substitute motion was made to postpone that action until next week's council meeting. So next week at the council meeting, the council does not need another motion to approve it. The question for the council is "yes" or "no" on the job description. The council cannot put another motion on top of it. The council could further delay action but cannot table it. Chuck Dickerson stated that he thought at that time that it was delayed from being voted on to go through the Emergency Services Committee for further discussion and review, and the recommendation of the Emergency Services Committee would be heard at this workshop. The committee recommended removing it from the council agenda. Mayor Olson called for a short recess so the secretary could get a copy of the June 15 council minutes. Mayor Olson read the motion from the June 15 council minutes: "Motion by Council Member Dickerson to postpone council action on Resolution No. R10 -77 for discussion by the Emergency Services Committee on June 28 discussion by the council on June 29 and final action at the council meeting on July 6 seconded by Council Member Hart. All seven council members present voted aye. Motion carried 7 -0." Emelie Eaton spoke regarding voting down the resolution, referring the job description back to the Emergency Services Committee, and bringing a proposal back at a later date. • Resolution — Contract with Elk River Law Office for legal services 4 Council Workshop Minutes of June 29, 2010 Mayor Olson stated that the contract is for the same amount of compensation but has a provision for further negotiations for additional compensation if the city starts a DUI Court. • Resolution — Contract with Chief Administrative Officer Mayor Olson has come to a contract agreement with the CAO. The agreement will be a one -year agreement with the same compensation as last year. The contract will be in the boxes soon. • Proposal from Yellowstone Bank Mayor Olson asked for public input. Corinne Moran, 210 Foundation Avenue, lives at the end of the proposed area. She is concerned that a person will purchase the property and cut off access to the residents, which would also mean that the garbage trucks and the school buses that pick up the handicapped children in that subdivision would no longer be able to access that road. Her other concern is what the city would propose to do with the property. It is an abstract piece of property. There is an easement for emergency vehicles and also an easement for the retaining pond. She stated that her concerns are for the garbage services, the children that are on that street, and what the city would plan to do with that property. Mayor Olson stated that the city will meet with Yellowstone Bank tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. He has received some information on funding mechanisms from the clerk/treasurer and information regarding uses for the parcel and benefits to the city from the public works director and the city planner. The availability of a place for the garbage trucks to turn around is being considered. The city understands the concerns and will have opportunity to discuss options with the bank. Information will be presented to the council as it is available, • Council Issues: o Elena Subdivision — construction of a wall Chuck Dickerson asked if the wall was going to be done. Doug stated his opinion is no. He thinks part of the reason it was originally put in that subdivision plan was the expectation that Maryland would have more traffic if it was extended all the way out. However, the traffic on Maryland right now does not merit expending funds to build a wall and then try to recover the costs from the subdivider. There is recourse, as the city could force the subdivider to do it now, but the developer does not have any money. Until traffic warrants that the wall needs to be built, Doug does not see the benefit of building a wall for residents that are not even in the city. The wall really only protects four or five people that own property on the other side of the wall and those are people that live outside the city limits. Doug stated that the city does not need to build the wall. Chuck Rodgers questioned whether there is really that much of a need for a wall. If the wall is built, it could become a maintenance problem, with graffiti being written on it. He suggested that the area could be landscaped with shrubbery, trees and grass to deaden some of the sound. The city already has thirteen parks and no funds to maintain them. Chuck Dickerson stated that answers that, but the area needs to be maintained in a little bit better fashion than it has been. Other items 5 Council Workshop Minutes of June 29, 2010 Mayor Olson stated that, at the recent meeting regarding water rates, he was approached by one of the panel members who questioned whether the city had informed the Montana Consumer Council about the intended water rate increase. At that time, Mayor Olson did not know if that had been done. He found the statute and has made the appropriate calls to the Montana Consumer Council. Mayor Olson asked if there was any public input. Mary Jo Devener, 1700 Ruffigy Road, lives outside the city limits. She represented the group that called a public meeting or town hall meeting concerning the water rates. She stated that the council was invited to the meeting and thanked Doug and Mayor Olson for attending. Mary Jo spoke from her notes for twelve minutes. At the conclusion, Mayor Olson asked for a copy of the notes, which Mary Jo agreed to provide. The notes are attached to these minutes. Bob Graham, 1200 Cedar Crest Circle, stated that he has known some of the people in the room for fifty years as honest, full of integrity, fair, and considerate. In this particular case, the council might, after holding a hearing, come up with the same conclusion or even a higher rate. He asked the council to follow the law, go through the proper procedure, and notify the proper state agencies. He stated that ignorance of the law is no defense. He asked the council to put a moratorium on the current rate and go back through the legal process. There was no more public input. Mayor Olson stated that he and Council President Poehls stated the city's position at the recent meeting. Mr. Molnar provided them with the information regarding contacting the Montana Consumer Council, and it was verified that the city did not do so. Mayor Olson then asked legal counsel to address the issue. Sam distributed a memo regarding the issue to the council and audience members regarding to provide options for further action. The issue will be on the July 13 council workshop agenda. Review of draft council agenda for July 6, 2010 • Public Hearing: Intent to create SID No. 112 The public hearing is scheduled for July 6th Attendance at the July 6, 2010 council meeting Kate might not be able to attend. Announcements Mark Mace commented on the 8 Avenue project. He stated that access issues during the project emphasize the need to consider the property in Solid Foundations. Chuck Dickerson wished the council and staff a safe and happy 4 of July. Norm Stamper stated that the Park Board will meet on Thursday, July 1 at 5:30 p.m. Norm asked regarding the status of the millings on Alder and Fir Avenues. Kurt Markegard stated that the County plans to do the milling in July or August. 6 Council Workshop Minutes of June 29, 2010 Norm asked if street repairs are planned in front of Graff School, as school buses have tom up the street. Kurt stated that this year's street maintenance plans should be ready by the next workshop. With this particular issue, the school district decided to move the buses from the east side on Wyoming to East 6 Street and the road section could not hold the heavy buses. The city is trying to address the issue. Areas where utility work has been done will also be addressed. Chuck Rodgers added the sprinkling system at the cemetery and a presentation by Roger Perkins to the next council workshop agenda. Chuck distributed copies of information to the council. Mayor Olson, Bill Sheridan, and Kurt Markegard recently met with Gary Neville and Stefan Streeter to discuss the interchange. It appears that the interchange will be moved a little bit to the east of where it was before, which poses some interesting opportunities. Mayor Olson stated the need to find a way to get the interchange over the railroad so the city does not have issues when the south side becomes landlocked by the railroad. He stated that Stefan Streeter and Jim Lynch understand that the City of Laurel would like to be able to go across the railroad. Mayor Olson stated that Bill contacted Joe Gentri regarding the railroad's intent for the area across from the Owl Cafe. Mr. Gentri said the railroad is open to working with the city to provide some type of development on that side of Main Street. There was also discussion regarding Asphalt Supply, and the railroad intends to take action there soon. The asphalt supply issue will be added to the July 13` council workshop agenda. James Caniglia, Bill Sheridan and Chuck Dickerson will attend the joint meeting regarding the planning mill levy at noon on July 8 at the County Courthouse. The council workshop adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, z_ciA a . 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. 7 ' -, ` ill Ctry -.10 beUener We were not notified of our right to be represented by an attorney / i pc Pit Pi, ' Eacod To have a Discovery Laure I � V T To cross examination To perform interrogatories c to c i / bt?o r rs !,o p ( 4 We were not allowed to make arguments that we consider proper at the conclusion of the hearing None of this happened, which means a RATE HEARING did not take place. It was simply a public meeting, where people could state whatever they wanted in 3 minute time period. No conclusion was determined based on the evidence presented. That decision was made on December 1St. If I were on your side of the desk, a RATE HEARING would be in the best interests of your constituents and the City of Laurel. It would be better to bear the expense of a RATE HEARING, than to bear the expense of going to court to say that you should be the only city in the state that doesn't have to meet all of the requirements under MCA 69 -7 -101, 69 -7 -111 and 69- 7 -112 and then more than likely be ordered to hold the required RATE HEARING. If you believe as strongly as you appear to that the rates you set are reasonable and just for the services you provide as required under MCA 69 -7 -101, substantiate that belief at a RATE HEARING. On a side note: What do you provide Fox Water Service in city services that are a ny different than any - o her 2" line holder. How can their water cos-times what another user such as Walmart or Water Specialties. What is reasonable and just about that? : j Min 1 c7AC -Gt5 a c- a 4-o G is Or you can go forth on the premise that you beat the system and hope theudge finds your way. Because if he doesn't, and there is a good chance he won't, you are going to stand the expense of the District Court hearing and then the expense of the RATE HEARING. It would be in the best interests of your constituents to go through the appropriate process and hold the RATE HEARING. Your best bet is to stay out of court and make it right. I would not want to be in your shoes going before a judge saying "Yes, we didn't do what the law prescribed. But we got away with it, because nobody caught it within 10 business days." If a judge or jury finds that the rates were unjust, the city of Laurel would be required to rebate the excess charges plus interest. And Fox Water Service could be awarded Compensatory Damages due to the substantial loss of business they've sustained due to the city's disregard for Montana Law or negligence. i t' — fie^ e fr' L 6. 1 4-o 3 a d u e '41/Les L' c 'A `' -(- to C t �-er p Cc, L' a 0, p c e c� de_� 41k.&k f s (A -c/4_ c ( ce kai e-1N t c P c ; c 4- '(o J-ce -L.c( d Pit, 1 vt_ CZ) c' • 69 -7 -101. Municipal utilities -- regulation by municipality. A municipality has the power and authority to regulate, establish, and change, as it considers proper, rates, charges, and classifications imposed for utility services to its inhabitants and other persons served by municipal utility systems. Rates, charges, and classifications must be reasonable and just. (for the services they provide.) 69 -7 -111. Municipal rate hearing required -- notice. (1) Except as provided in 75 -5 -516 and 75 -6 -108, if the governing body of a municipality considers it advisable to regulate, establish, or change rates, charges, or classifications imposed on its customers, it shall order a hearing to be held before it at a time and place specified. (2) Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper as provided in 7 -1 -4127. (3) (a) The notice shall be published three times with at least 6 days separating each publication. The first publication may be no more than 28 days prior to the hearing, and the last publication may be no less than 3 days prior to the hearing. (b) The notice must also be mailed at least 7 days and not more than 30 days prior to the hearing to persons served by the utility. The notice must be mailed within the prescribed time period. This notice must contain an estimate of the amount the customer's average bill will increase. (4) The published notice must contain: (a) the date, time, and place of the hearing; (b) a brief statement of the proposed action; and (c) the address and telephone number of a person who may be contacted for further information regarding the hearing. (5) Notice of all hearings shall be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to the Montana consumer counsel. 69 -7 -112. Conduct of municipal rate hearing. (1) At the hearing, all persons, associations, corporations, or companies affected or interested, including the Montana consumer counsel, may be present and represented by counsel. The hearing may be continued from time to time by the governing body of the municipality. At the conclusion of the hearing, all interested parties must be allowed to make arguments that they may consider proper. (2) Within 30 days after the hearing, the governing body of the municipality shall issue its decision. The decision is final 10 days after being filed with the municipal clerk. 69 -7 -113. Appeals. (1) A party to a municipal rate hearing may appeal the decision of the municipality to the district court in whose jurisdiction the municipality lies. (2) A person may appeal the adoption or application of municipal utility rules to the district court in whose jurisdiction the municipality lies. o w vl._ ti cYt, Recently, a group of concerned citizens held a pulalicunteting to discuss the issue of ,( water and water rates f t . Following the meeting, the Laurel Vec 1 stated that Brad Molnar believed the Statute of Limitations had run on the L Rate Increase. However, Mr. Molnar has done further research and believes, as do I, that what was held in December was a Public Meeting not a RATE HEARING as required by MCA 69 -7 -111. Under 69 -7 -111 a RATE HEARING requires that notice be published in the newspaper at least 3 times within specific time requirements. This was done. A notice must also be mailed at least 7 days and no more than 30 days to all persons served by the utility (a) with an estimate of the amount the customer's average bill will increase • (b) the date, time, and place of the hearing; (c) a brief statement of the proposed action; and (d) the address and telephone number of a person who may be contacted for f further information regarding the hearing. This was done in a manner However, , • • • ' • : - '' • i ox Water Service' otice'[ ' ` " Lc contained an estimate of what their average bill would be under the new rate v . at Additionally, a notice must be sent first class mail to the Montana Consumer Counsel. This was not done and is a critical piece of the legislation to comply wit r cv RATE HEARING. Under MCA 69 -7 -112, at a RATE HEARING all persons, associations, corporations, or companies affected or interested, including the Montana Consumer Counsel, may be present and represented by counsel. This would include the county residents who purchase their water from Fox Water Service. We don't believe that the requirements were met under MCA 69 -7 -112 to qualify the December meeting as a RATE HEARING at which we could be represented by counsel. Especially when the decision to impose the rate increase had been made on December 1 prior to the PUBLIC MEETING held on December 22 ". Under Administrative rules, a RATE HEARING is a CONTESTED PROCEEDING. The Rules of Evidence apply. All parties are allowed Discovery, interrogatories, presentment of evidence, calling witnesses, cross examination, and the overall presentment of a case. These are the rights of everyone affected b the increase as well as the Montana Consumer Counsel. v t-e e - 1--14r P - Then, if necessary, anyone affected by the increase may appealike decision of the municipality to the District Court allowed under MCA 69 -7 -11 0-0-ae>sv A PUBLIC HEARING is an administrative record, not a CONTESTED PROCEEDING. That's what took place. We were allowed to stand up and state our issues, but we were not notified of our right to have an attorney, our right to discovery, interrogatories, presentment of evidence, calling of witnesses or cross examination or a conclusion based on the facts presented by the interested parties. In fact, the form _secretary for the cityltold the Laurel Outlook, that she was aware that the Consumer Counsel must be notified of a RATE HEARING. She said that she was unable to find their address and chose not to notify them. le Try this with your State Income Taxes and see how far that gets you. The 10 days STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS allowed under MCA 69 -7 -112 is not , 1 ot,tec:ltf4e7p a Public Hearing, it is after a RATE HEARING has been held following the requirements under the code and can be appealed with cause to the District Court. Therefore, we believe that the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS has not started. be' To this point, the Laurel City Council, through their actions, has said: �� We don't need to have a rate hearing ' o• ' We don't need to invite the Consumer Counsel We don't need to hold a Contested Proceeding