Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Packet 04.21.2026 AGENDA CITY OF LAUREL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2026 6:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Input: Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business that is not on tonight’s 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. Because of the Rules that govern public meetings, Council is not permitted to speak in response to any issue raised that is a non-Agenda item. The Mayor may provide factual information in response, with the intention that the matter may be addressed at a later meeting. In addition, City Council may request that a particular non-Agenda item be placed on an upcoming Agenda, for consideration. Citizens should not construe Council’s “silence” on an issue as an opinion, one way or the other, regarding that non-Agenda matter. Council simply cannot debate an item that is not on the Agenda, and therefore, they must simply listen to the feedback given during public input. If a citizen would like to speak or comment regarding an item that is on tonight’s agenda, we ask that you wait until the agenda item is presented to the Council by the Mayor and the public is asked to comment by the Mayor. Be advised, if a discussion item has an upcoming public hearing, we would request members of the public to reserve your comments until the public hearing. At the public hearing, the City Council will establish an official record that will include all of your comments, testimony, and written evidence. General Items 1. Appointment of Bill Brew as the Police Captain for the Laurel Police Department. Executive Review 2. Council: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing Correspondence To The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 3. Planning: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing The Mayor To Enter Into Negotiations For A Professional Services Agreement With Interstate Engineering Related To Limited-Scope Planning Services. 4. Public Works: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing The Mayor To Enter Into Negotiations For A Master Services Agreement With Morrison Maierle Related To Engineering Services. 5. Planning: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing Property Owner Darrell Dyer To Apply For Annexation Of Property Less Than 2.06 Acres. 6. Public Works: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Awarding The Bid And Authorizing The Mayor To Execute All Contract And Related Documents For The Purchase Of A Garbage Truck From Billings Peterbilt, Inc. 7. Ordinance - An Emergency Ordinance Of The City Of Laurel Temporarily Imposing A Moratorium On Annexation Applications In Order To Evaluate Municipal Infrastructure Capacity, Water System Demands, The Impacts Of Recent Changes In State Law, Compliance With The Montana Land Use Planning Act, And The Proper Future Growth Plans For The City Of Laurel. Council Issues 8. Planning: MLUPA Updates 9. 4th of July Fireworks Discussion 1 Other Items Attendance at Upcoming Council Meeting Announcements The City makes reasonable accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person’s ability to participate in this meeting. Persons needing accommodation must notify the City Clerk’s Office to make needed arrangements. To make your request known, please call 406-628-7431, Ext. 5100, or write to City Clerk, PO Box 10, Laurel, MT 59044, or present your request at City Hall, 115 West First Street, Laurel, Montana. 2 File Attachments for Item: 1. Appointment of Bill Brew as the Police Captain for the Laurel Police Department. 3 4 File Attachments for Item: 2. Council: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing Correspondence To The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 5 R26-____ Approve FERC Correspondence RESOLUTION NO. R26-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA AUTHORIZING CORRESPONDENCE TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, Section 1: Intent. The City of Laurel has determined that it is appropriate to communicate with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) regarding NorthWestern Energy’s move to change the 370 MW of generation received, at no cost, from Puget Sound and Energy from rate based to market based (“Cost Based Tariff”), upon the request of Montana Public Service Commissioner Brad Molnar. The City’s proposed communication to FERC is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein (“FERC Correspondence”). Section 2: Approval. The FERC Correspondence, a copy attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved. Section 3: Execution. The Mayor, CAO, and City Council are hereby given authority to send the FERC Correspondence. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of April, 2026, by Council Member ________________. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the _____ day of April, 2026. APPROVED by the Mayor the _____ day of April, 2026. CITY OF LAUREL ___________________________ Dave Waggoner, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer 6 R26-____ Approve FERC Correspondence APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney 7 Laurel FERC YOUR HEADER DATE Sample letter The Honorable Laura V. Swett Docket ER26-129-002 Chairman Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First St NE Washington, DC 20426 Dear Charman Swett and Commissioners, Rosner, See, Chang and LaCerte, The Laurel City Council represents a unique population, all of which are NorthWestern Energy customers. Many work at the Railroad Switch Yard and the Cenex Refinery (the largest refinery in Montana). For such a small community we consume a large amount of energy and produce a large amount of energy. Most of our residents work regular jobs and many are retired. Many of our businesses are small and struggling. Our population growth is often people moving here to avoid the costs of living, or retiring in, bigger cities. Our energy consumption will continue to increase along with the rest of Montana. This with a backdrop of an ill-liquid energy market and stretched capacity of rate-based energy and transmission up grades. Because of this we are experiencing double-digit rate increases every few years. With great concern we learned of NorthWestern Energy’s move to change the 370 MW of generation received, at no cost, from Puget Sound and Energy from rate based to market based (Cost Based Tariff). Removing this resource f rom the control of the Montana Public Service Commission, and in service to all of NWE customers, to benefit just a few new customers, is counter intuitive. Especially since, as our “default supplier”, NWE’s only obligation is to serve their captive customers. Commissioners, except for a few moderate days in late spring and early fall we are often energy deficit and must go to the market to balance our energy consumption and generation. Rate basing the 370MW mentioned would not only take us out of an illiquid energy market, thus providing relief to a stressed grid, but also provide a capacity for economic growth to all; not just a few or one data center. Yes, even the “new large load” customers would benefit from rate basing this resource as indicated in NW E’s recent Large Load Tariff filing with the Mt. Public Service Commission. If the Mt. PSC approves NWE’s new Large Load Tariff legacy ratepayers could be paying for $2.1B in new generation used only by data centers. Of course the attending rate decreases, if the 8 afore mentioned 370 MW are rate based, would help all as property taxes would drop after a recent history of massive market value increases have driven property taxes beyond the capacity of many on fixed incomes to pay. Thank you for your consideration of this vital issue. We ask that you reconsider not only your determination that NWE can avoid scrutiny by upholding their determination that the capacity to generate 370MW in an energy deficit circumstance is of $0 value . We also ask that you recognize that the generation being used is for the greatest good when it serves all equally. Sincerely, Signature______________ Signature_____________________ Name Name Mayor Deputy Mayor ___Signature________ ____________________________ City Manager ETC Council Members in Support _______Signature____________ ________Signature__________ Name Teacher, Lawyer, What ever 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Northwest Western Colstrip 370Pu LLC ) ER26-129-001 REQUEST FOR REHEARING ON BEHALF OF NORTHWESTERN ENERGY’S CAPTIVE MONTANA CUSTOMERS AS REPRESENTED BY MONTANA’S INDEPENDENT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONERS Montana Commissioners Brad Molnar and Randall Pinocci (Montana’s Independent Commissioners or ICs) respectfully request that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) grant rehearing of the February 27, 2026 Order Accepting Tariff Revisions (Order).1 FERC relied on misleading information provided by Northwestern in response to a deficiency letter; information that led FERC to believe that the jurisdictional asset being sold had no market value and therefore Federal Power Act Section 203 approval was not required. The ICs recognize the political pressure that was brought to bear in an attempt to persuade FERC to reach this conclusion, but the fact remains that this asset has become very valuable. Had FERC directed Northwestern to provide a current market value assessment rather than rely on unsworn statements submitted by the very parties seeking to avoid FERC’s Section 203 jurisdiction, it would have been obvious that Northwestern’s preferred valuation was suspect. The asset is an operating and profitable steam generating plant with a current replacement cost of approximately $600M to $800M. The only thing that made it valueless to utilities on the west coast was its fuel source - - coal. That story has completely changed in the last year as even cursory research would demonstrate. 1 Order Accepting Tariff Revisions, North Western Colstrip 370Pu LLC, 194 FERC ¶ 61,251 (2026) (Order). 10 FERC’s decision rests entirely on its misapplication of the rebuttable presumption that “the market price is the transaction price.”2 In light of the relaxation of environmental controls applicable to coal plants, the exponential increase in demand being driven by artificial intelligence and associated data center growth, and the need for reliable dispatchable generation to serve this growing load, concluding that sale of a fully functioning coal plant with projected earnings in excess of $30 million per year (according to the record) are obvious grounds not to rely on that presumption. Is it any surprise to FERC, given the west coast’s irrational dislike of coal generation, Washinton State legislation, and WUTC rulings, that Puget Sound would be “willing” to give away its ownership share of the Colstrip assets? FERC has an “affirmative duty to inquire into and consider all relevant facts.”3 FERC must consider arguments regarding its jurisdiction, or else it acts arbitrarily.4 Because FERC defaulted to the rebuttable presumption in light of record evidence and instead of conducting a common sense review of the change in conditions since last Puget Sound sought to sell its share of Colstrip, its decision is unjust and unreasonable.5 In lieu of rejecting the filing, FERC should have set the docket for hearing so that a record could have been created to establish market value. The ICs respectfully request that FERC grant rehearing and reject the filing or set it for hearing to establish the market value of this asset to determine whether FPA Section 203 applies. 2 Order, P 42. 3 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 1965) (citing Mich. Consol. Gas Co. v. FPC, 283 F.2d 204, 224, 226, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 409 (D.C. Cir. 1960). 4 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (2)(C); Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, 354 F.2d, 608, 620 (2d Cir. 1965) (citing Mich. Consol. Gas Co. v. FPC, 283 F.2d 204, 224, 226, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 409 (D.C. Cir 1960). 5 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, 354 F.2d, 608, 620 (2d Cir. 1965) (citing Mich. Consol. Gas Co. v. FPC, 283 F.2d 204, 224, 226, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 409 (D.C. Cir 1960). 11 Specification of Errors and Statement of Issues In compliance with Commission Rule 713(c)(1)-(2), the ICs identify the following issues with the Order and explain that the Commission erred as follows: 1. Issue: Whether FERC erred by relying on a rebuttable presumption that the transaction price is the market price despite record evidence to the contrary. Answer: Yes, FERC erred. Record evidence demonstrated that the coal strip asset is expected to produce at least $30 million in revenue per year. The threshold for FERC jurisdiction under FPA Section 203 is $10 million. Clearly an asset that produces that level of revenue is not worthless. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal agency actions are held as unlawful and set aside when they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”6 FERC has an “affirmative duty to inquire into and consider all relevant facts.”7 The Commission’s decision to ignore these facts was arbitrary and capricious. REASONS FOR GRANTING REHEARING At the center of this determination is the market value of Colstrip Units 3 & 4 driven in part by their capacity to generate 370MW in a reliable manner. The plant was operational on the day of the transfer. Profitable contracts had been negotiated so we must assume that this acquisition is at a value greater than the $0 value claimed by the applicants. This is especially true because the plant is totally equipped with very expensive pollution control devices that make it 100% compliant with federal and state air quality standards. And has received recent upgrades. Reliance by FERC on a rebuttable presumption that the acquisition price is the market value ignored significant evidence that the asset is not valued at zero dollars. An appraisal of the value would have at the very least reflected the revenue projected to be earned, the salvage value, land value, and in this case contract value at a minimum. The only real question is whether the market value of the transferred generation assets is above or below $10M. 6 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 7 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 1965) (citing Mich. Consol. Gas Co. v. FPC, 283 F.2d 204, 224, 226, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 409 (D.C. Cir. 1960). 12 FERC’s Rule, 18 CFR 33.1 (a) (ii), states that establishing a value of over $10M may be done by “any means whatsoever”. Fortunately, there are many accurate methods. These are simple, common, and accepted across the board in every segment of society. Market Value The highest price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all condition’s requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. There are several ways to value a business. Here are several that are commonly used: Establishing a business’s value—often called “valuation”—is a blend of financial science and market reality. In 2026, most professionals triangulate value using three primary approaches. The Market Approach (Multiples) This is the most common method for small to mid-sized businesses. It values a company based on what similar businesses have recently sold for. * Earnings Multiples: You multiply a specific profit figure (typically EBITDA—Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) by an industry-standard “multiple.” * Example: If your EBITDA is $1M and your industry multiple is 5x, the enterprise value is $5M. * SDE: For very small “Main Street” businesses, owners often use Seller’s Discretionary Earnings (SDE), which adds back the owner’s salary and perks. The Income Approach (Discounted Cash Flow) This method looks at the future rather than the past. It is the “gold standard” for companies with high growth or predictable recurring revenue. * DCF Analysis: It projects the business’s future cash flows (usually 5 years) and “discounts” them back to their value in today’s dollars using a discount rate (to account for risk and the time value of money). 13 The Asset-Based Approach This calculates the “liquidation” or “book value” of a company. * Formula: Total Assets - Total Liabilities = Net Asset Value. * It is generally used for under performing companies or those with significant physical holdings (like real estate or heavy machinery). Key Value Drivers in 2026 Modern buyers look beyond the balance sheet. Factors that increase your “multiple” include: * Data Maturity: Having clean, actionable customer data. * Recurring Revenue: Subscription models are valued significantly higher than one-time sales. * Owner Independence: A business that can run without the founder is worth more. Sources: * Auxo Capital Advisors (2026): “How to Value a Business: Step-by-Step Guide” * PwC (2026): “Global M&A Industry Trends” * The Hartford: “Determining Your Business’s Market Value” All that shows that there are many accepted ways to appraise a venture, but NWE chose none. In fact, the only number they show for value is $0 and they do not substantiate that. Instead, they chose to live in the past and ask the Commission to ignore present day reality, future contracts, cash flows, and accept a self-serving narrative that market value is not achieved via an agreed to price between a willing buyer and a willing seller. But rather established by a politically mandated abandonment date and a bar to selling the asset for even $1. In Commissioner Molnar’s discussions with industrial appraisers none found the market value of $0 anything but laughable. None wish to be quoted for fear of political retaliation but all said they would testify if subpoenaed. The qualifier (first sentence after Market Value) in the examples above is virtually identical to Montana’s definition of Market Value in Montana Code Annotated 15-8-111 (Exhibit A). (2) (a) “Market value is the value at which property could change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” Plainly PSE was under compulsion to not sell but rather to 14 “abandon”. The State of Montana had to use a realistic, legal, example of “market value” and did so properly placing that value at well over $100,000,000. The relevant fact is that NorthWestern Energy was the last standing qualified entity capable of receiving the Puget shares of the Colstrip Generating Plant because it could not be sold per Washington State law as interpreted by the WUTC. And the Colstrip Owners Agreement granted veto power over a transfer. Therefore, an asset-based approach (see above) was necessary to get realistic market value. Which the Montana Department of Revenue did, and NorthWestern Energy and Puget Sound and Energy should have presented to the Commission. (Exhibit B) MCA 15-8-111 (2) (b) Plainly states that “If the department uses the cost approach as one approximation of market value (emphasis added), the department shall fully consider reduction in value caused by depreciation, whether through physical depreciation, functional obsolesce, or economic obsolesce”. These are the same rationales given to FERC by the applicant, Puget Sound and Energy, and Governor Gianforte but the definition of “depreciation” is different. FERC erred when they accepted their story line instead of demanding facts based on an appraisal, with NorthWestern having to provide the facts, not the Intervenors. In our original filing we clearly demonstrated the inaccurate and self-serving nature of PSE’s historical rendition so shall not repeat here. Now we plead the established market value of PSE’s Colstrip holdings the day they transferred to NWE from a factual and provable basis. Montana Code Annotated 15-6-156 (2) (i) (a) (Exhibit A) in pertinent part shows that the coal fired generation in question (2)(i)(a) is Class Thirteen Property and (4) shows the multiplier to establish the tax bill to be determined at 6% of market value established by the Montana Department of Revenue. The Commission’s own rules call for the establishment of market value 15 with acquisition value to be a rebuttable presumption, not a replacement for proven market value. Zero value is not common nor even logical. An easy rebut to the presumption would be an appraisal based on “comparative sales”. This was never pursued though it would have established a legitimate market value based on a willing buyer and a willing seller acting without compulsion. No explanation as to “why not” is offered. STATE’S LEGAL PROCESS An email from Jonathan Rosling (Exhibit B), a utility appraiser for the Montana Department of Revenue, indicates that the arguments shared with them, and eventually FERC, regarding declining value were considered, and determinations made, in response to their arguments. This was done during the assessments for Tax Year 2024. Assessments are made every two years, so the 2024 market value assessment was used for the 2024 and 2025 tax bills though the market for coal plants had increased per undisputed MEIC testimony, and the undisputed testimony of the Independent Commissioners during the 2024 – 2025 timeline up to the day of transfer and after. The market value for PSE’s Colstrip holding established in 2024 including the plant and pollution control equipment was $134,169,942 (Exhibit B). Because this is a two year cycle the value on the day the plant and some environmental control equipment transferred to NorthWestern Energy was $134,169,942. Puget and NorthWestern were only $134,169,942 off in their assertions to FERC. Montana’s DoR market value determination was never appealed by PSE. New numbers for the next assessment period are due March 31, 2026, the day after this compressed deadline. We assume that NWE’s tax calculation for 2026 will not read Market Value x 6% = Tax value $0 because the Colstrip Owners have veto power. Because PSE negotiated their “declining value theory” with Mr. Rosling (Exhibit B) and twice paid their tax bill since then the rebuttable presumption is that they were aware of this fact, 16 decided to roll the dice, and withhold the facts from FERC to benefit NWE. NorthWestern Energy is also centrally assessed, so knows that each such plant is taxed on Market Value after negotiation with Mt. DoR. Crystal Lail, Chief Financial Officer of NWE, testified at a rate hearing mid 2025 that she had recently negotiated property tax determinations with the Mt. DoR. Facts do not supplant facts. As to why NWE and PSE chose this high risk tactic remains a mystery. Perhaps a fear of the WUTC motivated their actions. Perhaps not. But their motive is of zero value. CREDIBILITY This is standard practice for NorthWestern Energy and being used on FERC. Not only the lack of transparency but using time compression as a weapon against a full investigation. In a recent rate case they uniquely rolled in four other rate cases all to be determined in a 9-month time frame (the average time frame for one is 14 months) so they could declare their own rate increase. That rate case also took 14 months. NWE is in a merger application with Black Hills Energy. The last merger application went on for 14 months and was for less than $3B. Adjusted for inflation it was still under $4B. The combined stock value of NWE and BHE in the current merger request is over $15B. The hearing date is set for 6 months at the request of NWE and Black Hills Energy. During this time there have been protests that NWE has refused to answer substantive questions and in other ways impeded the process to not allow full and robust discovery very similar to the requests to abbreviate the public comment period so questions on this docket could not be raised. We are all victims when this happens. See (EXHIBIT C) This exhibit, filed by Attorney Monica Tranel, a utility attorney formerly employed by the Mt. PSC, is twenty one pages of alleged efforts by NWE and BHE to use time compression, refusal to answer questions, or to falsely answer questions, to sabotage efforts to build a robust evidentiary 17 base from which the Mt. Commission can raise questions during the hearing and then make an informed decision. This certainly mirrors the tactics of NWE in this docket. Two weeks ago Commissioner Molnar raised similar issues and Commissioner Pinocci voted with him to have a public work session on the proper response to these concerns. The Commission of course could not have known about the possible nexus between the acquisition and the merger outlined in Tranel’s filings because NWE withheld it from you. Now that these statements are public, I am sharing them with you. This goes straight to credibility. When a quasi-judicial body receives unsworn testimony the first question is if the testimony is contrived or accurate. Please review commentator’s statements made during this investigation. With one exception, none of them, to our knowledge, ever filed anything with FERC. Yet all filed within two days of the deadline, in theory, nullifying any counter points from being offered. All mis-stated the effects of the transfer ie attributing the benefits of the transaction to residential customers when in fact the benefits all flow to NWE’s investors, and new large customers. All asked FERC to shorten the period of comment for both intervenors and the public though it is doubtful they even knew of this possibility, or would have condoned it, if not coached to do so. All requested a January 1, 2026 retroactive acceptance date. Logic dictates the conclusion that the public commentors (all politicians) were coached to get a second, unchallenged, bite at the apple and skew the public comment record. If indeed coached the commentors were all put at risk for any future campaigns having stood for having the low cost energy reserved for a data center and not for residential rate payers. The political blow back on this would haunt NWE for years yet is apparently considered worth it for a plant of zero value. 18 Property taxes have been a huge issue in Montana for the past decade. Rapidly appreciating market values being multiplied by the tax rate, have forced people to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains without corresponding increases in income. This has been the conversation around every pot-bellied stove and pickle barrel in Montana. Were these elected officials oblivious to the deception their letters caused? Or was this just harmless street theater laid on the Commission? Governor Gianforte also attributed the benefits of selling this super low-cost electricity to data centers as somehow providing services to residential rate payers. To put a fine point on this he also states that the transfer of this “zero value” holding is “consistent with the assets fully depreciated value. Governor Gianforte is a seasoned, pragmatic, successful, businessman and a renowned philanthropist. While serving in Congress he was rumored to be the wealthiest congressman. But he might not know that the full depreciation was not a stranded cost because the plant had reached its depreciation schedule end, or that it was old and beyond repair. Rather the depreciation schedule had been bought down to avoid stranded costs to whoever acquired it through abandonment. The “buy down” was done by Washington ratepayers. The zero dollar valuation is in response to a political mandate, not a market variable. Governor Gianforte realizes that if one of his companies buys a warehouse and his accountants put it on a twenty-year depreciation schedule, at the end of the schedule, it will be depreciated out. And the same accountant will advise to purchase another warehouse to enjoy the tax advantages. 19 If the properties around the warehouse have gone up in value, Governor Gianforte will sell the warehouse for more than he paid for it. But if the property around his warehouse has dropped in value and/or the building has fallen into disrepair the appraisal may cause him to sell for less than he paid for the building and land twenty years before. An appraisal will show him and the buyer the current market value. At no point in this example would Governor Gianforte claim the warehouse is fully depreciated so it must be abandoned and transferred to a new owner in a zero- dollar transaction. Yet Governor Gianforte, perhaps with the best of intentions, and NorthWestern Energy, guided by avarice and greed, and Puget Sound Energy trying to keep former Governor Inslee and the Insleeites happy, have indeed misled the Commission. Commissioners Molnar and Pinocci are both seasoned political veterans and recognize that political pressure is common, but often with low yield results for the governed. The political pressure brought in this case championed the dismissal of solid, normal, appraisal tactics. The Commission must reject the political comments and, rather, rule based on facts and law. FURTHER ECONOMIC VALUATION CONSIDERATIONS The market value of the Colstrip plant, $115,214,707, more than satisfies the need to fill out a 203 Form. And Mt. DoR included $18,955,235 in pollution control equipment for a total value of $134,169,942. Other value additions are unnecessary but highlight the purposeful undervaluation presented by NWE and PSE to FERC. NWE’s response to the deficiency letter shows receiving 25% of the water shares of Castle Rock Lake to cool the plant. Water is a key component in operating a steam plant. Montana does not tax water rights, so a market value was not obtained from DoR records. 20 A true industrial audit would have given the water shares a market value. In the high plains prairie eco system, where the Colstrip Plant is located, the value of water is very high. Twenty- five percent of this 150-acre lake is possibly more than the $10M in question, every year. Mt. DoR valued only $18,955,235 in pollution control equipment. The tax burden on such equipment ranges from $0 to 3% of the market value. Much of the equipment does not qualify for special tax consideration because the Dept of Environmental Quality has not certified it. Despite the bureaucratic morass, it has value. Though not included in the “first blush” answer the values total, not including the $19M mentioned above, $106,391,441, found on Page 4 of 8. EXHIBIT B Also found on page 4 of 8 are two pipelines and supplies to accommodate the plant valued at $4,910,730. And two small substations, valued at $3,912,509. We do not know if the substations transferred because PSE did not willingly account for transferred items. They may have been used in the operation of the plant and the transmission system NWE leased. Plainly, listing the market value of the items transferred was not considered supportive of their story line resulting in $0 in value. In NWE’s response to the deficiency letter was a listing of real estate parcels located in Colstrip, Mt. The Rosebud County Forsyth Field Office reports 182 locations in Colstrip, Mt listing PSE as owner or co-owner of the properties along with other owner interests in the plant. Mt. DoR recommended we contact the Field Office to get the valuations, and the Field Office told us to Contact the Mt. DoR. They then both told us to contact the Montana Office of Public Records Request. All messages sent through the portal have gone unanswered as of this sending. With the abbreviated time available the Independent Commissioners cannot provide the market value. Though certainly a great market value exists. NWE and PSE had a year to do this. Exhibit D 21 The market value is clearly over $10M. The total overage is not important but the lack of transparency and the failure to provide documentation is. COAL EXECUTIVE ORDER In response to your deficiency letter NWE claims that putting the former PSE generation in their hands, with a CBRT, would help keep the plants open and generating. And NWE states that this outcome supports the EO supporting the continued use of coal generated electricity. Commissioners Molnar and Pinocci offer an alternative view point while supporting EO 14621. First the generation in anyone’s hands would keep it open in our energy-starved nation. Second, if NWE acted like an Independent Power Producer and sold the electricity to their residential customers for $21 MWh they would keep the plant open and make better money than their short term sales will generate, by 25%. Why did they opt to not do this? With the 370 MWh rate based, as originally intended, and blended with current supplies, Montanans would enjoy the lowest residential and commercial rates in the nation. This would give Montanan’s, the Montana legislature, and the Montana Public Service Commission every incentive to protect the asset and keep it operational even in the face of renewed federal burdens. We proudly stand in support of President Trumps statement during the recent State of the Nation address that Data Centers should provide their own energy. Your ruling is the exact opposite of that national goal. MORE ON CREDIBILITY Compare the above sentiments of NWE to the historical antics of NorthWestern Energy, with many of the current top corporate officers still seated at the table. Shortly after claiming financial reserves capable of securing the needs of the people of Montana to become Montana’s default provider for their service area they declared bankruptcy. 22 This was due in part to the multiple fraudulent activities they engaged in before becoming the default provider. The allegations were upheld by the Securities and Exchan ge Commission. While Montanans strained under the cost of keeping NWE afloat during the bankruptcy court proceedings NorthWestern offered to sell the original Colstrip Unit 4 (CU4) to a private buyer for $403M after having acquired it for $185 two years before. They offered to rate base it for $403M so Montanans would not have to risk being in the day-ahead market for 5-7 years while a new gas plant was built. Then rate-base that plant. We rate based. The prospective buyer went bankrupt the following year. Under the recent FERC ruling NWE residential customers would remain paying $70 MWh from Colstrip Unit Four and the cost-based customers will be paying 425% less, at $16.30 per MWh, for generation from the same plant. The Commissions recent decision is not balanced. In the midst of bankruptcy NWE offered to transfer our transmission lines to an Australian Equity firm (Babcock and Brown) so they could use them as collateral and Montanans would have to pay the never-ending interest. Application denied. Babcock and Brown filed Chapter 11 the following year. At about the same time NWE offered to sell off our hydro generation system (Montanans still strained under the costs of keeping NWE afloat in the bankruptcy proceedings). We rate based the hydro system under duress for an estimated $200M over appraised value (there remains some dispute on the amount of the overage because so much information was contradictory) and a 5% “carbon tax”…ON HYDRO! As pointed out in the Monica Tranel’s 350 filing the income of the 370 MW’s may simply be uploaded to the umbrella group if the merger is approved by the Montana PSC and your tariff is allowed to stand. 23 Montana’s Independent Commissioners firmly re-state that the best chance to keep CU 3&4’s generation online is for the Montana Public Service Commission to hold the generation as rate based so the people of Montana can enjoy the benefits and protect them instead from allowing the generation to become just another piece in the corporate chess game being played by NWE. ADDENDUM The comments of the Montana Public Service Commission were not withdrawn due “inaccuracies”. No such blemish exists. We attest that the points made on the need to file an accurate Form 203 are solid and perhaps could have avoided this dust up overvaluation and tariff. To that end we attach the original PSC filing as our own. Addendum Exhibit D We note that in an unpublished, closed door, meeting between PSC leadership and NWE Governmental Affairs officers staff present remember that part of the presentation by NWE asking the PSC to withdraw their comments was that in the last year the valuation of coal plants had moved upward and they were afraid that if the Jan 1, 2026 deadline was missed PSE might cancel the abandonment and take the plant back to capitalize on the new market. I remember the same facts presented by PSC leadership in our meeting on this subject. Of course it was not possible under Washington law and precedent on this subject. CROSS SUBSIDIZATION Definition: Cross-subsidization is a pricing strategy where a company uses profits from high-margin products or services to cover the costs or losses of another product, service, or customer segment. It allows firms to set lower prices in one market to gain competitive advantage or increase affordability while maintaining profitability overall. 24 Mentioned in the FERC order II Filling (6) is that NWE has a contract for regulation product for the sales of it’s 370 megawatts from Colstrip 3 and 4. We are not aware of such a “contract”. Monica Tranell of 350 Law mentions in her Emergency Motions to Stay that in an investors meeting NWE stated that with the addition of the Yellowstone County Gas Station, and the 370 Puget megawatts, NWE would have enough energy to serve it’s new large customers. The Yellowstone gas plant is a rate-based, multi purpose, plant and provides regulation products for Montana rate payers. NWE has admitted that they only charge the FERC Rate for this service, even for wind energy exported from Montana to Seattle by Puget Sound and Energy. FERC Rate does not cover costs borne by rate payers to service the new plants construction costs. This is referenced on P6 (13) of FERCs rendition of MEIC’s arguments. MEIC and the IC agree on this point. MEIC’s definition of cross-subsidization was and is correct in this context. Plainly this is an illegal cross subsidization of NWE’s wind contracts. For NWE to say they will use this same rate-based plant, without authorization, to serve those receiving what should be low cost megawatts serving Montana’s captive customers, and have those ratepayers provide the plant for the regulation product, without compensation, is impermissible cross subsidization and a back handed slap. This is in contradiction with Commission comments on P 16 (42). If the Commission does not want to call this cross-subsidization perhaps we can settle on Forced Investment Without Dividends. COMPETITIVENESS Allowing NWE to sell electricity below $17 per MWh out of CU4 to new wholesale customers is a distinct disadvantage to those that would also want to sell electricity to the same customers. Those receiving the same power from the same plant and paying $70MWh are not 25 competitive in selling their products to their customers as their competitor’s would be in selling those products with an energy cost of $16.30. FERC’s precedents set in Order 2222, rejecting requests to sell excess capacity in the PJM auction thus protecting rate payers long term, FERC Rule 1920, and many more recent FERC rulings/interactions supporting competitive markets to ensure positive outcomes by protecting competitive energy markets are laudable. The single outlier is your ruling on ER26-129-001 in which NWE is allowed self-dealing by totally ignoring the responsibility to provide a single factual market-based valuation based on precedent and law. We repeat, market valuation is not $0 because you won the asset in a poker game, received it in probate, arm wrestled for it, pistols at dawn, knives at night, or a Slap Jack Tournament. It is decided by determination of who would buy/sell for how much without interference. Any federal court will find the same. RATE BASED The generation in question was rate based and paid for by the residential customers of Washington State. The buy down of the depreciated cost was done by the rate based customers of Washington State. It was rate based and assumed to be so by the Mt. PSC until the Commission took that away and gave a market based determination without a single fact being given. Because this was a rate based generation, held by a regulated utility and transferred to another regulated utility it remained rate based until the recent determination. This should happen only after a full investigation. Even a cursory investigation did not happen. RELIEF SOUGHT The Independent Commissioners of Montana appreciate this opportunity to find a legal and logical way forward without having to seek judicial review in the 9th District. While we share the 26 belief that such review would not smile on a claim of zero value supported by withheld documents, we prefer to keep this in the hands of professional regulators voting based on law and fact. We ask that FERC acknowledge the transfer of the former PSE Colstrip holdings in recognition of the complexities (created by NWE’s squandering of a year’s time) in compliance and allow the transfer of the generation as rate based with clear authority for the PSC to review and act upon the contracts already penned. Because the first ruling was affected by documents not offered to have a fact based outcome, we ask that the Commission invoke FERC Rules of Practice and Procedure Part 385 and sanction both NWE and PSE for failure to provide necessary documents and direct each to contribute $5M to Montana’s Energy Share not recoverable in rates. In the alternative we ask that the transfer be deemed probationary while allowing NWE 30 days to file a factual Form 203 with the commission that establishes a defensible market valuation as of January 2, 2026. And we then ask that the generation be returned to rate based as it was originally transferred and intended. While we appreciate the invitation of the FERC Commissioners for the Montana Commission to protect Montana ratepayers from the fallout of their decision, we prefer to grant said ratepayers the blessings of the lowest cost, reliable energy in America, and the economic opportunities it presents. And having that protected by the Montana Public Service Commission. Finally, we ask that FERC mandate NWE to produce all documents concerning the discussion on why their current retail customers should not get the $16.30 electricity but their new customers should. 27 Time spent in court to decide if the value of a generation plant that can produce the lowest cost electricity in the nation is zero dollars, is better spent working together pursuing our energy destiny according to law, fact and precedent. JURISDICTION The Montana Commission is not aware that the Commission has any information as to who shall receive the 370 MW short term. But in NorthWestern’s Integrated Resource Plan filed with the Montana Commission it appears that it will all go to a Data Center located in Broadview, Mt. in two years time. With this in mind we uphold FERC’s authority rule on the transfer the PSE holdings to NWE as this is plainly an interstate issue. The rest seems to be, or soon shall be, intrastate, which is the purview of the Montana Commission. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Brad Molnar Dated March 30, 2026 Bob Molnar Randall Pinocci Montana Public Service Commission [MPSC address] [email Bob] [email Randall] Attorneys for Montana Public Service Commission 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the forgoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compelled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010 of the Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. 385.1010. Brad Molnar, Montana Public Service Commission, District 2 Dated at Helena, Montana on this 30th day of March 2026 Dated this 30th day of March, 2026. 29 EXHIBIT A MONTANA TAX LAW 30 EXHIBIT B EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH THE MT DEPT OF REVENUE IN PERTINENT PART 31 EXHIBIT C EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY INVOLVING THE NWE MERGER AS COORDINATED WITH ER26-129-001 32 EXHIBIT D ADDENDIUM OF MT. PSC ORIGINAL FILING 33 EXHIBIT E REQUESTS TO THE MONTANA OFFICE OF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST 34 File Attachments for Item: 3. Planning: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing The Mayor To Enter Into Negotiations For A Professional Services Agreement With Interstate Engineering Related To Limited-Scope Planning Services. 35 R26-____ Approve Negotiations for Professional Services Agreement with Interstate Engineering RESOLUTION NO. R26-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INTERSTATE ENGINEERING RELATED TO LIMITED-SCOPE PLANNING SERVICES. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, Section 1: Intent. The City of Laurel is in need of the professional services of a limited-scope Planner to assist in compliance with Montana law, and specifically, related to MLUPA. Section 2: Approval. The City intends to enter into negotiations for a Professional Services Agreement with Interstate Engineering related to limited-scope planning services to assist in compliance with Montana law, and specifically, related to MLUPA, as Interstate Engineering was the highest-rated applicant for the planning services. Section 3: Execution. The Mayor is hereby given authority to enter into negotiations for a professional services relationship with Interstate Engineering and thereafter present a proposed Professional Services Agreement to City Council for consideration and possible approval. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of April, 2026, by Council Member ________________. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the _____ day of April, 2026. APPROVED by the Mayor the _____ day of April, 2026. CITY OF LAUREL ___________________________ Dave Waggoner, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer 36 R26-____ Approve Negotiations for Professional Services Agreement with Interstate Engineering APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 File Attachments for Item: 4. Public Works: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing The Mayor To Enter Into Negotiations For A Master Services Agreement With Morrison Maierle Related To Engineering Services. 45 R26-____ Approve Negotiations for Master Services Agreement with Morrison Maierle RESOLUTION NO. R26-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR A MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MORRISON MAIERLE RELATED TO ENGINEERING SERVICES. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, Section 1: Intent. The City of Laurel is in need of the professional services of an Engineering Firm to assist in assessment and engineering services for the City. Section 2: Approval. The City intends to enter into negotiations for a Master Services Agreement with Morrison Maierle related to engineering services, as Morrison Maierle was the highest-rated applicant for the engineering services. Section 3: Execution. The Mayor is hereby given authority to enter into negotiations for a Master Services Agreement with Morrison Maierle and thereafter present a proposed Master Services Agreement to City Council for consideration and possible approval. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of April, 2026, by Council Member ________________. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the _____ day of April, 2026. APPROVED by the Mayor the _____ day of April, 2026. CITY OF LAUREL ___________________________ Dave Waggoner, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer 46 R26-____ Approve Negotiations for Master Services Agreement with Morrison Maierle APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 File Attachments for Item: 5. Planning: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Authorizing Property Owner Darrell Dyer To Apply For Annexation Of Property Less Than 2.06 Acres. 109 R26-____ Authorize Property Owner to Submit Petition for Annexation RESOLUTION NO. R26-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA AUTHORIZING PROPERTY OWNER DARRELL DYER TO APPLY FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LESS THAN 2.06 ACRES. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, Section 1: Intent. The City of Laurel has received a request from Property Owner Darrell Dyer, of 1736 W. Railroad Street, Laurel MT 59044, to apply for annexation of property less than 2.06 acres. The property at issue is more specifically described as: Parcel Nos. 03- 0821-10-2-05-20-0000 and 03-0821-10-2-05-07-0000, Nutting Bros. Subdivision Block 6, Lots 1-7. Each Parcel is 7,000 square feet, totaling acreage of 1.125 acres. Pursuant to Resolution No. R08-22, Adopting the City of Laurel Annexation Policy, and Ordinance No. 008-02, Adopting Annexation Regulations for the City of Laurel for Incorporation in Chapter 16 of the Laurel Municipal Code, a property owner must submit a separate request to petition for annexation of property less than 2.06 acres. The Property Owner’s request is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Section 2: Approval. The Property Owner is hereby authorized to submit a Petition for Annexation for the aforementioned property. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of April, 2026, by Council Member ________________. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the _____ day of April, 2026. APPROVED by the Mayor the _____ day of April, 2026. CITY OF LAUREL ___________________________ Dave Waggoner, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer 110 R26-____ Authorize Property Owner to Submit Petition for Annexation APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney 111 112 1 Dyer Annexation CITY HALL 115 W. 1ST ST. PUB. WORKS: 628-4796 WATER OFC.: 628-7431 COURT: 628-1964 FAX 628-2241 City Of Laurel P.O. Box 10 Laurel, Montana 59044 Office of Planning Office of the Director of Public Works Date: April 17, 2026 To: Mayor and City Council From: Forrest Sanderson, AICP, CFM – Contract Planner Re: Annexation Request, Darrell Dyer BACKGROUND: On April 15, 2026, an annexation request for Lots 1 – 7, Block 6, Nutting Brothers Subdivision was submitted to the City of Laurel. A portion of this request was an initial zoning assignment of R-7500 to be overlaid with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The request to annex half a block is being presented to the City Council for consideration as required by City Council Resolution R08-22. The property owner is Iron Creek Holdings LLC which is believed to be owned by Daryl Dyer. The application materials contain a letter from the owner requesting variances to the minimum area required for annexation 2.06 acres and to the requirements that all public infrastructure adjacent to the areas to be annexed be extended by the developer. These documents are hereby attached to and made part of this report by reference. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST City Council Resolution #R08-22 (March 4, 2008) and the Application Form establishes the criteria and requirements for the annexation of property. Given that we are dealing with roughly ½ of a Block the analysis will be limited to only those items of initial relevance. Standard: 1. Only parcels of land adjacent to the City of Laurel will be considered for annexation. If the parcel to be annexed is smaller that one city block in size (2.06 acres), the city council must approve consideration of the request; the applicant must make a separate written request to the city council stating their wish to annex a parcel of land less than one city block in size. Once the council approves the request, the applicant can apply for annexation. Findings: 113 2 Dyer Annexation A. The property requested for consideration is adjacent to the existing Laurel city limits; B. The deeded property requested for consideration is 1.125 acres in size. a. The City Council could accept that the deeded ownership is the standard for annexation and decide on the question to approve or deny permission to move forward. C. Montana Annexation Law requires the City at the time of annexation to include in the annexation the full width of all adjacent road rights of way. a. The adjacent rights-of-way include: i. Hazel Avenue (60 x 300) 18,000 sq ft ii. The Alley (20 x 300) 6,000 sq ft iii. East 8th Street (60 x 360) 21,600 sq ft iv. East 7th Street (80 x 360) 28,800 sq ft v. 74,400 sq ft + (1.125 x 43560) = (74,400 +49,005)/43560 = 2.8 +/-acres. b. The full parcel to be annexed exceeds the established minimum, variance is not necessary. Precedence for including adjacent rights-of-way for area calculations was established in November 2024 with the Laurel Middle School rezoning application. c. A Survey showing all of the areas to be annexed into the city is one of the exhibit requirements in the annexation process. MOVING FORWARD 1. Admittedly, where Mr. Dyer is approaching the request as deeded ownership required for annexation, much of what follows is a discussion of the additional materials that must be supplied to formally request annexation into the City of Laurel. 2. The application does not adequately address the following items as required by Council Policy other than to request that the developer not be required to improve Hazel Avenue: a. An extension of City Streets, Water, Sewer, Sidewalks, Storm Water, Curb and Gutter and how the developer/owner intends to pay for these infrastructure extensions; b. An executed waiver of the right to protest the creation of SID’s; c. Adequate discussion of the suitability of the proposed zoning for the property to be annexed; d. A notarized signature from the record property owner authorizing the annexation and requested initial zoning; e. Adequate discussion of the subdivision process to create lots that conform to the minimum district requirements and use limitations imposed by the Laurel Zoning Regulations. 3. The application did include a fee for the consideration of annexation and zoning. 114 3 Dyer Annexation a. The fee is adequate for the application as presented but depending upon the decision of the Council to proceed may not be adequate if the larger area included in the area to be annexed. b. Should the request to proceed with ½ Block annexation be disapproved by the Council, the fees should be returned. 4. The request for variance to the Hazel Avenue Improvements in a preliminary process is inappropriate at best and a violation of our various development regulations, and/or our required public processes at worst. It also potentially carries a substantial future cost to the city rate and taxpayers. a. Our Annexation, Subdivision, and Zoning review processes are very public processes each with an opportunity to request variance from the adopted standard. These processes require a minimum of two public hearings (Planning Board/Zoning Commission and City Council, notice to surrounding owners and the public in general before any decision is made. i. To deviate from these processes is NOT recommended. b. If the City approves the annexation and does not require improvements to Hazel Avenue, the city could well be on the hook to pay for the required water, sewer, street, curb, gutters and sidewalks at some point in the future as the rights-of-way are part of the city infrastructure. i. If we assume that the required improvements cost $750,000 at 3% interest over 30 years the cost to the city would be $1,147,933.41 or $38,264.44 annually. It is highly unlikely that the proposed residential development of the property between taxes and user fees would amortize the debt. RECOMMENDATION: I have always told the City Council that annexation is a business decision. The developer/owner has already determined that being in the city provides them greater benefits than the costs. It is the duty of the City Council to determine if the addition to the request to proceed with annexation of Lots 1 – 7, Block 6, Nutting Brothers Subdivision is in the best interest of the city. 115 116 117 118 119 File Attachments for Item: 6. Public Works: Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Laurel, Montana Awarding The Bid And Authorizing The Mayor To Execute All Contract And Related Documents For The Purchase Of A Garbage Truck From Billings Peterbilt, Inc. 120 R26-____ Approve Bid for Garbage Truck Purchase RESOLUTION NO. R26-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA AWARDING THE BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL CONTRACT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A GARBAGE TRUCK FROM BILLINGS PETERBILT, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Laurel (hereinafter “the City”) is in need of a Garbage Truck (a/k/a “Refuse Truck”) for the Public Works Department; WHEREAS, the City has complied with its procurement policy and Montana law by utilizing a competitive bid process to ensure the cost and company selected is in the best interests of the City in both quality and price; WHEREAS, the City sought bids from qualified companies from whom to purchase the Garbage Truck by publicly advertising the bid pursuant to Montana law; WHEREAS, the City received a responsive bid from Billings Peterbilt, Inc. in the amount of $448,954.00; WHEREAS, Billings Peterbilt, Inc. was the lowest qualified bidder, and such bid is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the City currently possesses adequate funds to purchase the Garbage Truck and/or can make appropriate and reasonable lending arrangements, and it is in the City’s best interests to proceed with the purchase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, that the City Council accepts the bid with Billings Peterbilt, Inc., and the Mayor is authorized to execute all contract and related documents for the purchase of the Garbage Truck, pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the attached bid for the total cost of $448,954.00. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of April, 2026, by Council Member ________________. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the _____ day of April, 2026. APPROVED by the Mayor the _____ day of April, 2026. 121 R26-____ Approve Bid for Garbage Truck Purchase CITY OF LAUREL ___________________________ Dave Waggoner, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 File Attachments for Item: 7. Ordinance - An Emergency Ordinance Of The City Of Laurel Temporarily Imposing A Moratorium On Annexation Applications In Order To Evaluate Municipal Infrastructure Capacity, Water System Demands, The Impacts Of Recent Changes In State Law, Compliance With The Montana Land Use Planning Act, And The Proper Future Growth Plans For The City Of Laurel. 148 Ordinance No. 026-__ Emergency Ordinance Re Annexation Moratorium ORDINANCE NO. 026-__ AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAUREL TEMPORARILY IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS IN ORDER TO EVALUATE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, WATER SYSTEM DEMANDS, THE IMPACTS OF RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW, COMPLIANCE WITH THE MONTANA LAND USE PLANNING ACT, AND THE PROPER FUTURE GROWTH PLANS FOR THE CITY OF LAUREL. WHEREAS, the purpose of this Emergency Ordinance is to preserve the status quo and temporarily suspend annexation proceedings while the City puts a plan in place to evaluate the capacity of its infrastructure, including potable water supply, water storage, and municipal service capabilities, to assess the impacts of recent changes to Montana law affecting municipal land-use regulation, and to ensure proper future growth plans for the City of Laurel; WHEREAS, this Emergency Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. §7-5- 104, as follows: 7-5-104. Emergency ordinance. In the event of an emergency, the governing body may waive the second reading. An ordinance passed in response to an emergency shall recite the facts giving rise to the emergency and requires a two- thirds vote of the whole governing body for passage. An emergency ordinance shall be effective on passage and approval and shall remain effective for no more than 90 days. WHEREAS, the City makes the following legislative findings, related to this Emergency Ordinance: 1. The City of Laurel is responsible for providing safe potable water and municipal services to residents within the city limits. 2. The City currently has known infrastructure constraints within its water system, including limited water storage capacity and areas dependent upon temporary booster infrastructure. 3. Engineering analysis and planning documents have identified the need for additional infrastructure improvements. 4. The City is presently evaluating long-term water demand associated with significant industrial and municipal users within the City. 5. Recent amendments to Montana law, including §76-2-345 MCA, have altered municipal land-use authority and may increase development pressure. 149 Ordinance No. 026-__ Emergency Ordinance Re Annexation Moratorium 6. The City is presently undertaking actions to be fully compliant with the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA) §76-25-101 et seq. It is anticipated that it will take up to 24 months for the City to become fully compliant with the Act. Failure to be fully in compliance with MLUPA by May 17, 2026, exposes the City to serious liability when considering potential annexations, initial zoning assignments and subdivisions as additions to the City. 7. The City believes that the following planning, in part, is necessary, in order to ensure proper annexation and services to City of Laurel residents: (a) engineering staff certify water capacity; (b) storage impact is analyzed; (c) fire- flow requirements are confirmed; (d) service extension costs are identified; (e) emergency response service demands are evaluated; (f) infrastructure demand related to commercial and residential properties is evaluated; and (g) all other City service demands are evaluated and assessed, prior to any other approved growth within the City. 8. Properties contiguous to the City that may be eligible for annexation include substantial tracts of undeveloped land. 9. Preliminary estimates indicate potential annexation requests could involve approximately 50 to 60 blocks of developable land, if not more. 10. Municipalities that annex property must provide municipal services to annexed areas. 11. The City must ensure infrastructure can safely serve both existing residents and future development. 12. Immediate annexation consideration could jeopardize safe and reliable infrastructure. 13. The City has not completed current engineering confirmation of available potable water reserve for additional annexed territory. 14. The City is presently evaluating contractual water obligations involving major industrial consumption, including anticipated long-term municipal demand impacts. 15. Emergency services delivery capacity for certain contiguous growth areas has not been fully verified. 16. Annexation without immediate engineering verification may impair service reliability to existing residents. 150 Ordinance No. 026-__ Emergency Ordinance Re Annexation Moratorium 17. Municipal emergency medical, police, and fire response impacts for newly annexed territory require updated review. 18. Temporary delay is necessary to prevent commitment of municipal services before capacity is known. 19. The City requires time to arrange to conduct engineering review, infrastructure review, and policy evaluation. 20. This Emergency Ordinance is not directed at any particular development proposal, and it applies citywide to all annexation requests equally without regard to applicant identity, land use type, or pending proposal. 21. This Emergency Ordinance shall not be applicable to any developer who currently holds a valid/unexpired City Council issued Approval for Conditional Annexation, Preliminary Subdivision Plat, or Initial Zoning Assignment. WHEREAS, effective immediately upon passage, the City shall not accept, process, review, or approve any annexation petition, application, or request; WHEREAS, this Emergency Ordinance is effective immediately upon passage and approval and shall remain in effect for ninety (90) days unless earlier repealed by the City Council; WHEREAS, this Emergency Ordinance requires a two-thirds vote of the whole governing body; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety, and welfare and shall take effect immediately upon passage, and the City Council waives a second reading of this Emergency Ordinance. PASSED and ADOPTED on first reading (second reading waived) at a meeting of the City Council on the __th day of April 2026, upon Motion by Council Member _____________________. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR on the __th day of April 2026. CITY OF LAUREL ___________________________ Dave Waggoner, Mayor ATTEST: 151 Ordinance No. 026-__ Emergency Ordinance Re Annexation Moratorium _______________________________ Kelly Strecker, Clerk-Treasurer 152 File Attachments for Item: 9. 4th of July Fireworks Discussion 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173