Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 12.05.2006 MINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECEMBER 5, 2006 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Special Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at 7:00 p.n~ on December 5, 2006. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: _x_ Dick Fritzler _x_ Kate Hart _x_ Gay Easton _x_ Jennifer Johnson __ Doug Poehls x Mark Mace x Chuck Dickerson x Norm Stamper OTItF. RS PRESENT: Sam Painter Mary Embleton Perry Asher Mark Richards · Le~s~fiveReview: Mayor Olson stated that the special council workshop was scheduled for a legislative review. Copies of the Montana League of Cities and Towns 2007 Legislative Resolutions were distributed to the council prior to this meeting, and a copy is attached to these original minutes. The League of CRies and Towns adopted the resolutions as a format for the 2007 legislative session. Resolution #1 - General Principles Mayor Olson stated that this resolution contains the tenants by which the League of Cities and Towns is organized and the reasons for which it became a spokesman for the cities and towns in Montana. Resolution #2 - Local Ootion Taxes The League has sponsored the resolution for local option taxes. This is not the vehicle that would implement the local option tax, but it is the vehicle that would allow cities to bring it before the voters for a decision. Ifa large metropolis implemented the local option tax, a part of the proceeds would be distributed back to the area communities. This is sponsored by the League. The City of Billings, which is a charter community, is bringing forward its own option tax which would not allow for the spreading of the proceeds. It will be interesting to see how that is accepted at the state level. Mary stated that the structure proposed by the League is to have regional areas centered and set up around the larger cities. If Billings successfully is on its own, the City of Laurel might be in line to be the regional city, which could have a big impact. Special Council Workshop Minutes of Deceanber, 2006 Jennifer stated that there has been a lot of discussion about local option taxes at the Big Sky Eennomic Development Authority. Most of the members are from Billings, and they can s~t it up so Billings can keep all the proceeds. It has always been her ~ontention at the Big Sky EDA meetings that this issue has to be fine tuned before it is brought to a vote. Laurei is in a unique situation since no oth~r city its size is in the county with the largest ~ity. Laurel is overshadowed by the larger city in the largest county. Y~t Laurel is bigger than a lot of county seats, which is a unique situation. Jenny thinks this is a good thing, but she stressed the nm to he careful how it is written and s~t up. The way it is now, Billings would not have to share any funds with the rest of Yellowstone County. Mayor Olson attended the Legislative Committee meeting where the resolutions were adopted. If this passed in this form, Laurel would receive some sharing of revenues f~om the Billings area. The contention was that there would be two simihr bills going forward: the one that Billings would sponsor and the one that the League would sponsor. That caused quite a bit of consternation because Billings carries a large vote. Billings was asked whether they would support this issue. They said they would support this issue but would also bring its issue forward to the legislature. Alec Hansen will keep the city informed. Resolution #3 - Accommodations Tax Distribution Mayor Olson stated that the State of Montana currently imposes a 7% tax on accommodations, of which 3% is divided up into the communities and 4% goes to the State for administrative charges. Two ways have been proposed to go forward with this. The accommodations tax could be increased to 10%. Cities do not receive any of that money now. If successful in getting the additional 3%, there are two options. If the tax remains at 7% tax, the state could receive 4% and the cities could get 3%. If the state wants to maintain its level of funding at 7%, the tax could be increased to 10%. Mary mentioned that the City of Laurel pays accommodations on the revenues it collects at Riverside Park. Chuck stated that a poll done on approximately 420 people showed that 80% were opposed, 8% were for it, and 12% were undecided. Mayor Oison stated that there is currently a 7% tax on accommodations, and all of it goes to the state. The League maintains that the cities should be reimbursed at 3%. Resolution g4 - Finance Policy Resolution #5 - Land Use and Environmental Regulation Mayor Oison asked the council to submit any questions regarding these resolutions in a timely manner so answers can be received from Alec Hansen before the council workshop on December 12t~. Resolution g6 - Protective Services and General Operations There was no discussion. 2 Special Council Workshop Mioutcs of Dec~mber, 2006 Resolution #7 - Ballot Measures and Other Proposed Legislation CI-97, CI-98, end 1-154 were removed fi.om the November 7th ballot. Representative-Elect Kerns and Senator McGee will attend the council workshop on December 12t~. Copies of the League information will be given to ther~ Mayor Olson asked Mary to present enother consideration for legislative cone, ems. Mary stated that general obligation bonds have been presented in the past. It was restrictive as far as being able to use it as a funding source for a new pool. It only allows .9 percent of the assessed taxable valuation, which was not enough to build a new pool General obligation bonds require voter approval. State law currently limits cities and towns to 1.51 percent of its local assessed value of taxable property in any one year that is assessed by the state. That is fairly restrictive, especially for a smaller community that does not allow very much debt authority to be able to do much of enything. The costs are substantial to build a pool, a fire hall, a fire truck, or any of that type of thing. Voters would more than likely appmve something like that, but they do not have that ability to assess that. It has been recommended that the limit should be increased through legislation. MaeNan Ellingson, from Dorsey & Whitney, suggested that it should bo reviewed. It would be more attractive for the public to approve this type of allocation as it could be written often pmperty taxes. MaeNan will assist in bringing something forward that would be adventageous for local governments. It is included on the list of Finance Policies so the League will also support it. The Clerk/Treasurers Association has formally approved pursuing it through its legislative committee. Counties are limited to 1.4 percent of its assessed valuation, which is a good number. City-county consolidations like Butte-Sflverbow get 2.5 percent of their value. There is no consistency there and it should be taken to a more workable level. Jennifer stated that Representative Rehberg previously pledged a million dollars in appropriations for the water intake project. It was publicized that the money was given to Laurel, but it never materialized. Since it was promised and was not fulfilled, perhaps Laurel has a little leverage with Representative Rehberg because that was a major thing. It could be used towards the intake project now or for something else. Jennifer thinks the city should remember who pledges money and if was actually received. Denny Rehberg is our senior representative now and it might be worth visiting with him about the money he promised to Laurel. Mary stated that water end sewer funds have more flexibility to raise money and incur indebtedness because the city has more control over revenue rates. General fund obligations are much more limited, so this would probably be a good thing to help alleviate the city's limitations. The city is tied to the tax laws end there is a whole list of previsions on how the Department of Revenue assesses the taxes that determines the mill levy. Having more leeway would be beneficial to the City of Laurel and cities statewide. Mayor Olson stated that the city struggled with the funding mechanism for the opportunity to build the pool about a year ago. Even rnaxing out would not accomplish what would be needed for the construction of the pool This type of legislation would allow that opportunity to come to fruition. One importent part to rec%~niT~ is that every time the city enters into that, it encumbers this council end future councils. It is a very serious step and raising the ceiling is a very serious step, but it 3 Special Council Workshop Minutes of December, 2006 would provide the option allowing the city to control what is done. Mayor Olson supports this and thanked Mary for her presentation. Mayor Olson asked Will Guenthner to make a presentation. Will Guenthner is the acting chairman of the Montana State Firefighters Memorial. Will displayed pictures of the proposed design of the memorial. The city signed a resolution and the governor dedicated Laurel as the home of the Montana State Firefighters Memorial. The project started in 2001 but work is being done on it. He had a thought recently and that is one of the reasons he attended this meeting. In the last election, the citizens of Yellowstone County approved a Veterans' Cemetery for Laurel. He thinks something similar could be done with the firefighters' memorial. The original intention for the memorial was to raise the funds strictly through donation, but it has been difficult to do so. Some people say they will commit after the department does, and it has become harder and harder to raise the funds. He asked the council to take this under consideration, like the veterans' cemetery, and to bring this forward. It is a Montana State Firefighters Memorial; it is not for the City of Laurel. If this can get to the Montana legislature through local means, he thinks the department can get more support fi'om the other fire departments and from politicians at local, state and federal levels. They are currently looking at federal funding and trying to procure some state funding. Paperwork for the design of the memorial was sent to CTA Architects today. CTA Architects will start the paperwork involved with that, including the permitting and elevation drawings. CTA has agreed to do fundraising, along with Sealy and Associates. However, CTA would not do the fundraising until the contract was signed so they have a design to show to prospective donors. Will used the drawings to show the council the proposed memorial. In order to entice donations, a donor wall was designed to recognize the individuals, the cities, the state and federal legislators who work to get funding. That should help to procure the necessary funds. Jennifer suggested contacting the Big Sky Economic Development Board about the memorial. When MSU expanded the College of Technology, they asked BSEDA for a pledge to start the donations. They got donations from the EDA and the EDC part of BSEDA, which showed the leverage to the state level. BSEDA employs a lobbyist, which might be a resource in gaining funds. CTA does a lot of work with BSEDA and is a member of the EDC. Jennifer suggested that the fire department give a presentation to the EDA Board in order to get their endorsement, which could continue to the state level. The Billings Fire Department presented the safety levy to the Board. There is no reason why Laurel, especially for a state thing, could not also give a presentation and request an endor-~ment. Mayor Olson stated that this would be a good way to get exposure for the project. Pamphlets have been printed and are available for distn~oution by the council. CTA Architects could distn~oute the pamphlets as a vendor at state meetings. Mayor Olson suggested that a resolution of support by the City of Laurel be presented at the December 12th workshop for the council's consideration. Approval of the resolution could present oppommities for the council to present the idea to the legislators. Mayor Olson asked Will to Special Council Workshop Minutes of December, 2006 present the proposal at the next council workshop, which will be attended by Dan McGee and Krayton Kerns. Jennifer suggested approaching the League of Cities and Towns for an endorsement. In that arena, information could be distributed at the next MTLCT meeting. Will Guenthner will try to arrange his work schedule so he can attend the council workshop. Gay Easton asked regarding the total cost of the project. Will explained that the original estimate of cost in 2001 was for $400,000 to build the memorial. The figures given by Sealy and Associates now are closer to $800,000 to $900,000, which would include some of the maintenance issues. Originally, it was going to be built at one time, but now they are looking at doing it in phases. The first ph~e would cost $150,000 to $200,000 for the sidewalk and rotunda with the flagpole and podium. They would work out f~om there and start putting up the wall and the water feature. Chuck suggested that this could be similar to the Veterans' Memorial at the courthouse. He suggested contacting the people that worked on that project to find out their approach and their contacts. Mary suggested checking into the Veterans' Memorial in Great Falls to see how it was done. Her family paid to have her dad's name put in it. Will distributed some pamphlets to the council Mayor Olson stated that resolution of support would be added to the council workshop agenda on December 12th. The council workshop adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 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. 5 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 1 of 9 Montana League of Cities and Towns 2007 Legislative Resolutions Annual Conference October 4-6, 2006 West Yellowstone 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 2 of 9' Resolution gl General Principles In the 75 years it has spoken as the united voice of Montana's cities and towns, the League has been guided by general principles that have been consistently applied in developing Legislative recommendations and determining the policies ofthe association. These general principles are: 1. financial stability for municipal governments to assure the continuation and improvement of the services and facilities that make Montana cities and towns good places to live and work 2. diversification of revenues and support for option taxes with the understanding that local voters should have the right to decide municipal finance issues 3. recognition of fair principles of taxation, specifically the idea that nonresidents should pay for the services they use instead of laying the costs off on Montana property owners through higher mill levies 4. continuing distribution of state funds to local government through the Entitlement Program as provided in the 2001 Law 5. statutory appropriations and grant and loan assistance for capital improvements and other programs 6. protection from state and federal mandates 7. policies to promote economic growth, community development and historic preservation 8. laws and regulations to promote the use of cormnunity water and sewer systems to protect the quality of the Montana environment 9. programs to promote more effective management, share information and to generally improve the efficiency and effectiveness of municipal governments 10. opposition to measures and policies that would privatize solid waste, recreation programs and other municipal services 11. resistance to any attempts to shifts cost fi'om counties to cities for detention centers and other services and facilities 12. recognition of the contributions of cities and towns to the history, culture and economy of Montana and appreciation for the idea that effective local govemments will provide the ideas, energy and tools to build a better Montana. Be it resolved that the officers, directors and staff will follow these general principles to determine the position of the League on bills introduced in the 2007 Legislature that are not covered by specific resolutions. 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 3 of 9 Resolution #2 Local Option Taxes The League has supported local option tax authority in every regular session of the Legislature since 1981. This persistent and up to now dead end advocacy is based on two simple and compelling ideas: 1. Local voters are capable of determining the amount and type of taxes they will pay to support their cities; and 2. The 12 million tourists who visit Montana each year should pay a fair share of the cost of the services provided by local governments. In the last three sessions of the Legislature, the League supported bills that would have allowed the voters in cities, towns and counties to impose a tax of up to 4% on accommodations, restaurant meals, liquor by the drink and other goods and services connected to the tourist economy. These bills also required that 25% of the revenues collected by the resort tax be shared with other local governments in five regions of the state generally drawn around the circulation areas of the major dally newspapers. These bills were limited to the tourist economy and included the revenue sharing provisions in an attempt to build support for local option authority. This strategy increased support for option taxes in each of the last three sessions of the Legislature. In 2005, the option bill passed the Senate but was stalled on a deadlock in the House Taxation Committee. Be it resolved that the League will arrange for introduction of a bill in the 2007 Legislature to allow aH cities, towns and counties to impose a voter-approved tax of up to 4% on goods and services connected to the tourist economy. Be it further resolved that 25% of the tax collections will go into a regional revenue sharing account. If the local option measure is rejected, the League will also support incremental increases in the population limit on the resort tax to benefit Kalispell, Livingston and other tourist destinations that do not qualify to use the current law. 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 4 of 9 Resolution #3 Accommodations Tax Distribution Each year, about 12 million tourists and other travelers come to Montana. These visitors spend nearly $1.5 billion annually. They exert heavy pressure on local governments, and with the exception of fuel tax distributions, they pay nothing for police, fire, emergency medical, streets, roads and other services and facilities they use in Montana. The state imposes a 7% tax on accommodations, but the money goes to the general fund or for travel promotion. The League has argued for many years that cities should receive a fair distribution of bed tax revenues to cover the cost of services provided to nonresident visitors. Be it resolved that the League will arrange for the introduction of Legislation to distribute 3% of the accommodations tax to the local governments where it is collected to cover the cost of the services and facilities that make Montana an attractive destination for tourists. Be it further resolved that the League will support a voter approved local option lodging tax not to exceed 3%. 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 5 of 9 Resolution g4 Finance Policy The Legislature has almost total control over municipal £mance policy. It has set the value and tax rates on property, offered exemptions for various classifications, limited mill levies and imposed other restrictions. Balancing a city budget under these conditions requires a sharp pencil, tough choices and a little bit of magic. Cities and towns are operating on subsistence budgets. They need supplemental funding and cannot accept further reductions in property tax revenues or assume costs mandated by the state. It is time for the Legislature to finally understand that cities and towns have done more with less for too long. Be it resolved that the League will support bills to: 1. revise the Public Defender Law to require that the growth factor for the Entitlement Program be applied before assessments are subtracted. This change in the sequencing of the calculation will increase municipal entitlement shares by nearly $30,000. The League will arrange for introduction of this bill 2. clarify the law on the phase-in of property values after each reappraisal cycle and its application to new construction 3. reimburse local governments for the loss of revenue that occurred when the tax exemption on business equipment was increased to $20,000 4. allow cities and towns to sell bonds through local banks 5. make it possible for local governments to attach insurance claim payments to cover the cost of demolishing structures that have been destroyed by fire or other causes 6. prohibit state agencies from requiting unreasonable indemnification clauses as a condition of loans made to local governments 7. allow cities and towns to adopt separate water and sewer rates for low income residents. The City of Helena is interested ' · , ..... ~n adopting non~offensive d~scnm~natory rates", but does not have the necessary authority under state law 8. increase the debt limit on general obligation bonds from 1.51% of assessed value to an amount that is less restrictive. (To be recommended by the Clerks, Treasurers and Finance Officers Association) 9. fund continuation of the Main Street Program at the level recommended in the Executive Budget 10. allow cities and counties to adopt a realty transfer tax of up to 1% with voter approval, committing 5% of the proceeds for property tax relief and providing local governments the discretion to determine the use of the remaining proceeds and provide exemptions (Recommended by Whitefish) 11. extend the time for the payment of sidewalk assessments fi.om 12 to 20 years. (Recommended by Missoula) 12. amend 15-10-420 MCA to allow municipal property tax collections to increase by the full 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns rate of inflation. It may be necessary to arrange for the introduction of this bill Page 6 of 9 13. provide for equal assessment of parcels in street lighting districts in addition to the front footage and taxable value methods in current law. Be it further resolved that the League will oppose bills to: 1. reduce, freeze, or in any other way interfere with the distribution of Entitlement Payments to local governments as provided by the 2001 law 2. transfer state programs or responsibilities to local governments without full, fair and pen-nanent reimbursement of all costs 3. exempt state or local education levies from the base of Tax Increment Finance Districts established in the future 4. /ncrease the assessments on cities and towns for the statewide Public Defender Program unless it can be shown that the additional costs are necessary and reasonable. 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 7 of 9 Resolution #5 Land Use and Environmental Regulation In recent years, most of the development in Montana has been occurring beyond the boundaries 0f cities and towns. A study conducted two years ago by the Department of Commerce showed that Missoula was the only city in Montana that grew at a rate faster than the unincorporated area of the county in which it is located. If this pattem of development continues, those natural qualities that make Montana a special place to live will be lost forever. State and local governments must cooperate to establish growth and land use policies that recognize private property rights while protecting the natural assets of Montana. Be it resolved that the League will support Legislation to: 1. encourage the use of community sewer systems to protect water quality across the state, including a measure that may be introduced to increase the minimum lot size required for the installation of septic systems 2. promote development practices that assure the best use of the land and cost efficient delivery of services 3. require local governments provide written explanations and justification to only those conditions imposed on a subdivision to which written objections are submitted 4. repeal Section 76-2-312 MCA which, for some strange and inexplicable reasons, denies extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction to cities organized under the Commission- Manager form of government 5. repeal or amend the Mega Landfill Siting Act to assure that large solid waste facilities currently serving cities are not required to pay licensing fees and comply with unnecessary regulations when they reach a volume of 200,000 tons per year. Be it further resolved that the League will oppose Legislation to: 1. restrict the annexation authority of cities and towns 2. allow the incorporation of new municipalities within three miles of existing cities as a method of avoiding annexation 3. reduce the percentage of protests necessary to block the creation of a Special Improvement District for sanitary sewer service. As an alternative, cities could consider amendments that would allow a 50% protest to be overridden by a regulatory agency or two-thirds majority of the council to protect public health and water quality 4. make unnecessary or unworkable changes to the Subdivision Laws that were last revised in 2005 5. amend provisions of the Impact Fee Law that were agreed to by cities, counties, developers and builders after long and difficult negotiations before and during the 2005 Legislature. Resolution #6 Protective Services and General Operations 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 8 of 9' Municipal governments provide the police, fnce, emergency medical and other services that protect homes, businesses and the health, safety and security of the majority of Montanans who live within the boundaries of the state's 129 cities and towns. "To protect and serve" are more than words painted on the side of a police car. They are the honored creed of local government. Be it resolved that the League witl support Legislation to: 1. require primary enforcement of safety belt laws under state statute or local ordinance 2. provide enhanced Emergency Communications Services to all areas of the state as recommended by the 911 Advisory Council and provide adequate funding 3. allow a suspended firefighter to accept the disciplinary action and waive the fight to a hearing before the City Council or the personnel review board 4. require that the "Last Best Offer Package" in police arbitration be submitted no later than 14 days prior to the hearing. Under current law the package can be submitted at anytime within 14 days of the hearing. Be it further resolved that the League will oppose Legislation to: 1. revise fire service laws without the consultation and consent of cities and towns 2. deny local governments and school districts the fight to generate power or acquire electricity and natural gas supplies on the open market. Be it resolved that the League wffi monitor and consult with the membership on Legislation to: 1. adjust benefits under the Public Employees Retirement System 2. increase municipal contributions from the employer side to help reduce the unfunded liabilities in the various retirement accounts 3. authorize additional alcoholic beverage licenses as a method of promoting business development, particularly in downtown areas. 11/30/2006 Montana League of Cities and Towns Page 9 of 9 Resolution #7 Ballot Measures and Other Proposed Legislation The Board of Directors of the League voted unanimously in June to oppose Constitutional Initiative 97, because the members believed the impractical spending limits in the ballot measure would threaten vital programs, many of which directly benefit cities and towns. The Board also voted to oppose Initiative 154. There was general agreement that this measure would force cities to repeal planning, zoning, subdivision and other land use regulations, pay unreasonable claims, or fight expensive property rights lawsuits. Constitutional Initiative 98 would make it easier to recall judges which would threaten the independence of the judicial branch of government. These initiatives have been disqualified by a district court ruling, but this decision could be successfully appealed or parts of these measures could be submitted as bills in the 2007 Legislature. Be it resolved that the League opposes CI-97, CI-98 and 1-154 and will work to defeat these measures if they are placed on the ballot or considered in any form during the 2007 Legislature. Be it further resolved that the League will support Legislation to require those gathering signatures for initiative petitions to be Montana registered voters with valid identification.