Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 09.04.2001MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF I AUREL September 4, 2001 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Chuck Rodgers at 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 2001. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lauren Van Roekel Gary Temple Ken Olson Mark Mace Gay Easton Daniel Dart Bill Staudinger Bud Johnson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None Mayor Rodgers asked the council to observe a moment of silence in behalf of the family of Miranda Fenner. Mayor Rodgers led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. MINUTES: Motion by Alderman Staudinger to approve the minutes 0fthe regular meeting of August 21, 2001, as presented, seconded by Alderman Mace. Motion carried 8-0. CORRESPONDENCE: Senator Max Baucus: Letter of August 17, 2001 regarding field hearing on energy needs scheduled for August 24th in Billings. b. Senator Byron Dorgan: community issues. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Letter of August 10, 2001 regarding symposiums on rural Land Use Variance on vacant land on unimproved 10t~ Avenue and West 6th Street. Mayor Rodgers opened the public heating. Mayor Rodgers asked if there were any proponents. David Metzger, 820 1~t Avenue, spoke regarding his application for a land use variance. The property is located outside the city limits, and he plans to build a pole building in which to store a motor home, a boat, vehicles, and materials to build a house in the future. There is currently no road and no electrical power to the property. Mr. Metzger has no plans to use the building for business purposes. Mayor Rodgers asked twice if there were any other proponents. There were none. Mayor Rodgers asked three times if there were any opponents. There were none. Motion by Alderman Ols0n to close the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Staudinger. Motion carried 8-0. b. Special Review for preschool at 815 5th Avenue. Mayor Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mayor Rodgers asked if there were any proponents. Laurel Collins, the applicant for the preschool, works at Discovery Day Care in Billings. She plans to open a preschool three days a week for two sessions each day. The sessions would run from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and from 12:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Six to Council Minutes of September 4, 2001 ten children would be enrolled in each session for the structured preschool activities. Laurel Collins would use the basement of her home for the preschool and would be willing to have a fire inspection done. Mayor Rodgers asked if them were any other proponents. Marlana Worthington, 3443 Stone Brook Drive, ~tated that the structured curriculum and good environment provided by the preschool would be a positive thing for the community. Mayor Rodgers asked two times if them were any other proponents. There were none. Mayor Rodgers asked three times if there were any opponents. There were none. Motion by Alderman Temple to close the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Johnson. Motion carried 8-0. c. Lighting District No. 2. Mayor Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mayor Rodgers asked if them were any proponents. John Oakes, 2317 East Maryland, started a lighting petition several years ago in order to address the drug and crime situation in Village Subdivision. He stated that improved lighting would provide safety for residents, deter crime in the area, and allow police officers to see to the end of the streets during night patrol. Mayor Rodgers asked twice if there were any other proponents. Randy Swenson, a business owner of property at 120 West 12th Street, has questions regarding the project. He stated that lighting has a direct impact on crime and that the light district should be pursued. The project needs to be done cost effectively. Mayor Rodgers asked if them were any other proponents. Mark Frickel, 703 West 9t~, stated that better lighting is needed in the city. Mayor Rodgers asked twice if them were any other proponents. There were none. Mayor Rodgers asked if there were any opponents. Louise Goss, 1113 9th Avenue, has lived here for 24 years. She questioned how many needs assessment surveys were distributed and returned and stated that numbers and percentages can be very misleading. She stated that the 300-400 per cent increase does not include the 200-300 per cent increase that utility companies are anticipating in the future. She questioned how the tax base would be affected. Louise was raised in a city that had lights on every comer and at every third house, and it did not make a friendlier city or reduce criminal activity. She stated that motion lights are a more cost effective way to provide lighting. David Siljestrom, 702 2~a Avenue, is the city electrician for the City of Billings where he maintains approximately 3,700 streetlights. He raised the following questions: 1) Will we be paying maintenance fees in the first year of these lights? If so, why? The material and workmanship should all be guaranteed from the manufacturer and Montana Power should also guarantee their work for the first year. 2) At what point will the costs be removed from the tax bills? At the present costs projected by Montana Power, we will be paying $1.5 million every ten years and that goes on forever. 3) Did we look at any contractors and get outside prices? 4) How do you justify a charge of $20.86 per month or $250.32 a year for a pole that costs $385? 5) How much does each light fixture cost? Based on the maps he has seen, he thinks the number of poles could be cut by almost two- thirds without cutting much lighting. 6) The fixtures proposed have approximately 40 per cent less light than the traditional style lens. If lighting is being used as a crime fighter, a flat lens does not provide the right lighting. David stated that the city should go outside for bids since MPC did both the engineering and the price quote. Council Minutes of September 4, 2001 Charlie White, 2311 East Maryland, stated that the streetlight issue has been brought up before and there was overwhelming opposition to it in Alder Ridge in the past. Oakland, one of the biggest lot owners in Village Subdivision, is bankrupt and a lot of property is not being represented. Many residents in the subdivision pay for a security light in their yard, and they have been burglarized and vandalized. He does not want to give thieves a way to see what could be stolen. Charlie contested the cost for the project and suggested that the figures are much too expensive and unnecessary. Jack Spears, 2306 Atchison Drive, has been a security officer at Rimrock Mall for eighteen years. He stated that drug dealers need and want lights in order to deal drugs and that the drug dealer in Village Subdivision was dealing drugs inside his house with very adequate lighting. His neighbor lady has a light, and Charlie and another neighbor have had their vehicles vandalized. Charlie stated that the money would be spent: a lot better if used for more police officers and better equipment. He stated that if streetlights prevented crime, Los Angeles would not have any problems. Leona Musson, 719 6th Avenue, thinks there is no need for additional lights. Many people have security lights on their homes and there has been very little vandalism in her area. She is against both the streetlights and the taxes. Duane Guenthner, 412 Birch Avenue, stated that the residents that have existing lighting should not be required to bear an additional tax burden to provide lighting for residents that do not have lighting. He sees why the power company wants to sign up the whole city so there are uniform lights and poles. He agreed that the statement the higher the pole, the more radiance you get from the light is true, and stated that lighting makes it easier for criminals to check out a neighborhood. He is not against people that want lighting, but he does not want to pay for their lighting. Maurice Semmler, 1103 Locomotive, has his own security lights and sees no need for the streetlights. Lynette White, 2311 East Maryland Lane, feels that additional lighting would allow unattended children to stay out later and cause more problems. Neighborhood dogs alert residents to intruders now and residents help each other out. Laurel Haggart, 806 Wyoming, talked to Northwestern and to Montana Power about questions. She still does not know the total cost of construction. The letter from ME&A stated that Montana Power would charge seven times the current charge, and she questioned what the cost would be next June. Laurel stated that the city's water and sewer systems need a lot of money, and this would be an additional financial burden. Laurel asked for an answer regarding the total cost of construction. John Becker, 1219 Beartooth, has concerns about the costs and the lack of a time limit for the SID. He questioned the $19,000 administrative costs and the maintenance costs for the light poles, which should last for at least ten years with no maintenance. The poles and materials should be warranted. He asked how much of the cost was maintenance versus actual power consumption, and he stated that the city should own the SID at the end of the payment period. John stated that the four 100-watt halogen lights that he installed at his property did a real nice job of lighting up the inside of his vehicles to be burglarized. Tom Prill, 315 11th Street West, lives across from Kiwanis Park. The streets are lit up, but the park is dark and there is a lot of youth activity over there. Energy costs are going up. He recently toured Ft. Peck Dam, which provides enough electricity to light up a city of 250,000, but the electricity goes to California because they can get more money. People here live on limited incomes and cannot afford to water lawns or pay for another project. Tom does not think streetlights are needed, as they do not stop crime or vandalism, and many people cannot afford it. Albert Ehflick, 401 Cedar Avenue, stated that people should have the opportunity to vote on the SID. Al Schiavon, 1010 Reading Circle, stated that he does not see any reason for the lights. Keith Wood, 1321 Meadow Circle, is not against lights for anyone who wants them. When he lived in Wolf Point, there were streetlights, but now he likes not having so many lights. Wayne Musson, 719 6th Avenue, asked whose idea it is to put in the streetlights. Mayor Rodgers stated that the council went by the survey that was put out. Pat Murtaugh explained that 1,200 needs assessment surveys were sent out and 640 surveys were returned. Of those returned, 395 stated that Council Minutes of September 4, 2001 they would support a citywide lighting district, 206 said no, and 42 gave no answer. Of the respondents, 66 per cent said they would support the lighting district. Mr. Musson stated that the last letter he received said that if 50 per cent of people were against the lighting district, it would not be done. Mr. Musson stated that many people would not write in but would vote on the issue. He is tired of the government taxing the people and does not need another tax. He requested that the council do some investigation on the issue, and he thinks that the power company had a big part in doing this. Mark Frickel, 703 West 9th Street, stated that he has been enlightened on the issue. He does not think that the charge should continue forever. Laurel needs to do a lot of things to improve the city. If the figures that the electricians have presented are true, Mark suggested that the proposed costs are out of control. Thomas Prill, 315 11th Street, does not see how a general question on a survey could be used to push a costly project on residents. He thinks that the issue should be a ballot issue. Warren Schwenneker, 804 8t~ Avenue, spoke against the lighting district on the assumption that there are not definite costs for the project. David Siljestrom stated that he had information regarding prices and products that he would be willing to share with the council. Mark Frickel asked why an unending project would even be considered. Terry Goss, 1113 9th Avenue, stated that curfew laws do not prevent children from having a good time in the streets at 2:00 a.m. with no lights. If the curfew laws were enforcedl he thinks that the problems would be solved. Bruce Souder, 912 l0th Avenue, stated that Laurel does not need streetlights to make the city look more metropolitan. A resident can buy a light if desired. He stated that an SID without a vote is ludicrous for someone on a limited income. Bruce stated that the streets and water issues are a major concern. He does not understand why 8th Avenue, a main thoroughfare in the city, cannot be repaired properly. He feels that the streetlights would be an unvoted tax on the citizens of Laurel. Gall Brice, 709 8th Avenue, mentioned that many cities are trying to reduce light pollution, and there is no sense in contributing to it. Edna Schwenneker, 804 8th Avenue, suggested asking the survey respondents if they would support the streetlights with the proposed costs. Mayor Rodgers asked three times if there were any other opponents. There were none. Motion by Alderman Olson to dose the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Johnson. Motion carried 8-0. Mayor Rodgers thanked the audience for their comments and participation. d. Lighting District No. 3. Mayor Rodgers opened the public hearing. Mayor Rodgers asked three times if there were any proponents. There were none. Mayor Rodgers asked if there were any opponents. Duane Guenthner, 412 Birch Avenue, stated that increased costs in the commercial district would be passed on to the consumer. Mark Frickel, 703 West 9th Street, stated that there was not enough information about the costs of this proposal to make a wise decision. Connie Boyd, 925 4th Avenue, owns commercial property in town, and questioned if the same pricing deal is going on with this as with the other district. Council Minutes of September 4, 2001 Mayor Rodgers asked three times if there were any other opponents. There were none. Motion by Alderman Staudinger to close the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Johnson. Motion carried 8-0. CONSENT ITEMS: a. Claims for the month of August 2001 in the amount of $305,348.72. A complete listing of the claims and their amounts is on file in the Clerk-Treasurer's Office. b. Receiving the Committee Reports into the Record. --Budget/Finance Committee minutes of August 2, 2001 were presented. --Budget/Finance Committee minutes of August 6, 2001 were presented. --City Council Committee of the Whole minutes of August 21, 2001 were presented. --Laurel Airport Authority minutes of July 24, 2001 were presented. c. Resolutions. 1) Resolution No. R01-59: Resolution of annexation of Lot 1, Block 1 of Ward Subdivision, Yellowstone County. RESOLUTION NO. R01-59 RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF WARD SUBDIVISION, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY. 2) Resolution No. R01-60: Resolution accepting an agreement with Beartooth RC&D Economic Development District. RESOLUTION NO. R01-60 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT WITH BEARTOOTH RC&D ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. The mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none. Motion by Alderman Johnson to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by Alderman Olson. Motion carried 8-0. SCHEDULED MATTERS: a. Confirmation of Appointments. None. b. David Metzger - Land Use Variance on the vacant land on unimproved 10ih Avenue and West 6th Street to build a pole building before a residence is built. Planning Board recommends denial. Motion by Alderman Temple to approve the Land Use Variance for Mr. David Metzger on the vacant land On unimproved l0th Avenue and West 6th Street to build a pole building before a residence is built, seconded by Alderman Dart. Alderman Olson stated that Mr. Metzger has tried to be in compliance with his vehicles at his property on 1st Avenue. Cai explained that the city's zoning ordinance specifies that accessory buildings cannot be the primary building on a lot. The applican[ requested a variance to the city code, and variances require II Council Minutes of September 4, 2001 the applicant to show hardship in order to receive the variance. The Planning Board determined that there was no hardship in this case. There was a question whether the council could approve the variance. Matt Erekson stated that the council could determine to grant or deny the variance and had to determine whether or not there was a hardship. The council had a lengthy discussion about planning, the character of the Metzger family, the location of this property, other situations where a similar variance was requested, the determination of a hardship, the present zoning ordinance, and the trends that result from making decisions on an individual basis. A vote was taken on the motion to approve the Land Use Variance. Motion carried 6-2, with Aldermen Johnson and Mace voting nay. c. Laurel Collins - Special Review for a preschool at 815 5th Avenue. Planning Board recommends approval. Motion by Alderman Johnson to approve the Special Review for a preschool at 815 5th Avenue with the stipulation that it receives a fire inspection, seconded by Alderman Olson Motion carried 8-0. Resolution No. R01-61: Being a resolution levying and assessing all of the property embraced within Special Improvement District Light No. 2 of the City of Laurel, Montana, for the entire cost of maintenance and electrical current for the fiscal year 2001-2002. RESOLUTION NO. R01-61 BEING A RESOLUTION LEVYING AND ASSESSING ALL OF THE PROPERTY EMBRACED WITHIN SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LIGHT NO. 2 OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA, FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF MAINTENANCE AND ELECTRICAL CURRENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002. Motion by Alderman Temple to deny Resolution No. R01-61, seconded by Alderman Dart. Motion by Alderman Johnson to table Resolution No. R0t-61 to find some answers to the questions, seconded by Alderman Easton. Mayor Rodgers stated that this item could only be tabled until the next Council meeting. Alderman Johnson agreed. There was confusion regarding the two motions. Alderman Temple called for a five-minute recess. Mayor Rodgers granted the recess at 8:17 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:22 p.m. Mayor Rodgers stated that there was a motion on the floor to table Resolution No. R01-61. Alderman Temple called for division of the council. A vote was taken on the motion to table Resolution No. R01-61. Moii0n carried 5-3, with Aldermen Dart, Temple and Van Roekel voting nay. Alderman Johnson suggested forming a task force to explore answers to the questions voiced by the opponents in order to further educate the council before making a final decision. Alderman Mace stated that it would be a disservice to the city to forget the issue at this point. He stated that additional information could be drawn from several people in attendance at the meeting and that further information is needed in order to make a proper decision on the issues. Mayor Rodgers asked for Volunteers to serve on the task force. The task force will consist of John Oakes, John Becket, David Siljestrom, Mark Frickel, Randy Swenson, Laurel Haggart, a representative from Ace Electric, and Aldermen Mace, Johnson, and Olson Council Minutes of September 4, 2001 e. Resolution No. R01-62: Being a resolution levying and assessing all of the property embraced with Special Improvement District Light No. 3 of the City of Laurel, Montana, for the entire cost of maintenance and electrical current for the fiscal year 2001-2002. Motion by Alderman Mace to table Resolution No. R01-62, seconded by Alderman Johnson. Motion carried 8-0. UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: None. There being no further business to come be£ore the council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Cindy Allen,CSecretary Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 18th day of September, 2001. Charles G. Rodgers, M~or J Attest: MarY .I~mb~eton, Clerk-Treasurer