Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 07.08.2008 COUNCIL WORKSHOP JULY 8, 2008 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at 6:30 p.m on July 8, 2008. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: x Ernelie Eaton _x Kate Hart _x Gay Easton x Alex Wilkins _x Doug Poehls _x Mark Mace _x Chuck Dickerson _x Norm Stamper OTHERS PRESENT- Sam Painter Mary Embleton Bill Sheridan Kurt Mazkegazd James Caniglia Rick Musson Scott Wilm Jan Fought Public Input (three-minute 1Vimitl: Citizens may address the Cauncid regarding any item of Ciry business not on the agenda. The duration for an Individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While adl comments are welcome, the Council will not take action on any item not on the agenda. There was no public input. Mayor Olson asked Joyce Jensen, of the Yellowstone Historic Society, to speak to the council regarding the proposed sign at Riverside Pazk. Joyce Jensen previously spoke to the council regarding about putting up a wooden sign at Riverside Fazk about the prisoners ofwaz that were held there during World Waz II. The Society found one company that gave a bid of $3,000 for about 200 words and the logo on the sign. For $2501ess, the company would do an unpainted sign that someone else could paint. The Yellowstone Historic Society can provide $1,500 for the sign. Joyce requested that the council and city help them acquire the other half of the $3,000 cost. Another individual, Michelle Steffans, will be contacted regarding making a sign. The sign would be similaz to the sign in the firemen's park across the street. The dimensions would be 3 feet by 8 feet. The city will assist with installation of the sign. Joyce suggested approaching the larger businesses in Laurel to see if funding would be available for the sign. Mayor Olson stated that the options could be presented to the council at the workshop on July 29~ for the council's consideration on August 5~. Joyce will attend the council workshop and provide the options available. Fire Department: • Resolution - Cenex Fire Contract Doug Paehls thanked Scott Wilm for his work on the contract. Doug explained some minor changes to the contract, which he hopes to have completed by next Tuesday. The Emergency Services Committee approved the contract. One change regazding Service Area: strike "as CHS Properties". Cenex will Council Workshop Minutes of July 8, 2008 provide a map that identifies the structures included in the contract. The structures are on the east side of the highway and include the administrative building, the truck terminal, and a pipeline dispatch center. Another change regarding Effective Date: Agreement shall be effective on July 1, 2008, "and will automatically renew on a yeazly basis unless structures aze added or after an analysis by the Fire Department that there is a need for negotiation." Doug will provide the correct verbiage. Doug received tacit approval from Brad Kimble, who is on vacation, and will send the updated version to Greg Brawn tomorrow. Public Works Department: • Resolution -Great West Engineering, Task Order No. 7 for the CTEP Project for sidewalks on South First Avenue Bill Sheridan stated that Task Order No. 7 with Great West Engineering for $17,811 is to provide the engineering and application of a CTEP grant along South First Avenue for sidewalks, driveways, and some extensions of storm water inlets into properties. • Resolution -Small Services Contract with Rudy Grvshelle in the clerk's office Bill explained the small services contract with Rudy Groshelle. Three bids were received for removal and replacement of the glass block window in the clerk's office that leaks and bows. Mr. Groshelle's $3,500 bid was the low bid. A contract has been prepared, and Bill asked the council to approve the contract in order to make the improvement in the city clerk's office. • Resolution -Small Services Contract with Concrete R Us for concrete work at city parks Bill explained the small services contract with Concrete R Us to provide concrete walkways to restraoms and other facilities. One is at Russell Pazk for $1,455 and the other is at Kiwanis Pazk for $4,760. Bill asked the council to approve the small services contract so the public can easily access the bathrooms and properly use the parks. Emelie asked if the bathrooms aze yeaz-round bathrooms. Mayor Olson stated that the bathrooms aze winterized and locked when cold weather sets in. Plannin;~: • Resolution -Small Services Contract with Dan McGee for surveying of Riverside Park James Caniglia stated that the small services contract is for surveying of Riverside Pazk. He hoped a survey would not be necessary, but part of the land was never properly deeded and has to be surveyed. Mr. McGee did not provide a definite estimate but seta $5,000 maximum estimate. Clerk/Treasurer: • Resolution - MMIA Employee Benefit Program Representation Mary Embleton explained the service agreement with Dave Allen as the city's MMIA Members Representative far the health insurance plan. In 2004, the City of Laurel joined the statewide city health insurance pool with MMIA. At that time, the city retained the services of Dave Allen, who was the agent with the previous plans, because he was the most knowledgeable with employees and the plan. Mary recommended continuing this and introduced Dave Allen to answer any questions. Mark asked regazding the increase in the premiums this year. Mary stated that the premiums increased roughly 5 percent. The Member Services Rep portion remains the same at $6.92 per employee per month and is paid by the city. 2 Council Workshop Minutes of July 8, 20U8 Dave offered to answer any questions and stated that he has worked with the city for nine years. Mary explained that the city had Mutual of Omaha's regular health insurance plan when she started with the city. People were dissatisfied with it, and the city changed to YCHP and New West, both HMO plans that were willing to share the city's book of business. Dave was involved with YCHF at that time. YCHP was later bought by Blue Cross, and then Blue Cross was retained by MMIA to administer the MMIA plans and allowed the city to keep the Blue Select plan, which was labeled a custom plan by the MMIA. Dave is familiar with the variety of plans offered by the MMIA and is available to help people with the technical issues that arise with health insurance. Dave stated that he fields questions related to claims and benefits and assists as the go-between to get claims paid if it is possible. Mayor Olson asked what the health insurance premiums are now. Mary stated that the employee only rate is $548.60; the employee/spouse rate is $1,212.85; the employee/child rate is $879.32; and the employee/family rate is $1,411.48. The caps aze $700 for employee only and employee/child and $1,100 for employee/spouse and employee/family. The difference is paid by the employee via payroll deduction. The employee only rate does not require extra premium from the employee. • Resolutions -Year-end transfers Mary explained the resolutions for year-end transfers. The first resolution transfers insurance funds for the City of Laurel and is done twice a yeaz. The city levies mills in the Employee Health Insurance Fund and the Permissive Medical Levy Fund. After the two big tax payments are received, the monies must be transferred to the General Fund, where the actual cost for health insurance is incurred. A worksheet attached to the draft resolution showed that the levied monies do not cover all of the costs for health insurance. The city cannot increase the levy to cover the costs. The street, water, sewer, and garbage funds pay far the health insurance costs through the user rate or the assessment and help the General Fund with these casts. Mary recommended approval of the resolution. Mary explained the budget amendment resolution. This is preliminary because she has not gone through the books to make sure these are the only budgets that need an amendment. The first one is the General Fund. When the fire tender vac truck was purchased, the city took out a loan for the bulk of the purchase price. So the General Fund budget must be amended to reflect that. The second one is the HOME Program. Several clients did not fulfill the timeline obligation and decided to sell their home. If they do that, they have to pay all of the grant monies back, which then in turn can be reissued to other first-time homebuyers. The other two are Trust and Agency Funds. The first one is the Crime Victims Fund, which had to be increased by over $6,000. The city never knows how much business the court will have, and this is a reflection on how busy the court is. This is a surchazge that the court collects, the city sends to the County Treasurer, and the County sends to the State of Montana. The fourth one is the Airport Authority. There were extra dollars either in collections from prior years or from the House Bill 124 entitlement. Mary stated that a budget amendment requires a public hearing by statute. She has suggested holding the public hearing on July 29`h and adopting the resolution on August 5~'. The public hearing must be advertised for two weeks and then the council can adopt after the public heazing. An August 5~' date is on the draft resolution for adoption of it. Mary posed the question just this afternoon and the answer will be researched. • Report on League of Cities and Towns Executive Boazd Meeting 3 Council Workshop Minutes of July 8, 2008 Mary distributed information to the council, and a copy is attached to the original council workshop minutes. Mary attended an Executive Boazd meeting on June 2dth in Helena. She updated the council on the following issues: review of the legislative information; the proposal for a local option tax; the proposed revenues from a local option tax; the League of Cities and Towns' contract with a consultant for water and wastewater quality issues; identification of issues with the Department of Transportation; planning issues and a recent Attorney General Opinion regarding who gets to vote in a planning district; House Bill 124 Entitlement information; the relationship and Memorandum of Understanding between the League of Cities and Towns and the Montana Municipal Insurance Authority; MMIA's concerns regarding proposed legislative changes in work comp statutes; and a current vacancy on the MMIA Board of Directors. The Legislative Committee will meet either the end of August or beginning of September. Mayor Olson and Mary attended a meeting with Alec Hansen recently. At that time, Alec asked if there were any concerns Laurel could bring forwazd for discussion at the legislative session. Mary then brought up the fact that the city would like to be able to bond against the Street Maintenance Fund. The question to Alec Hansen was the possibility for the League of Cities and Towns to sponsor legislation which would enable Intercap or other state funds to use Street Maintenance Funds for bonding. Mayor Olson put this item on the July 29th council workshop agenda for discussion to see if the council would approve a resolution allowing the city to go forward and request that type of support from the League of Cities and Towns. Mary will clazify with Alec Hansen if a sponsor has been found ar if the city should contact one of the local legislators to see if they will sponsor it for us. Executive review: • Resolution -Adopt Capital Improvements Plan Mayor Olson stated that Miral Gamradt presented the CIP during the public hearing last week. The CIP is a very good document and he has had positive reports from the clerk/treasurer, Mary Embleton, and the chief administrative officer, Bill Sheridan, that they actively support this. • Police Union contract Bill Sheridan stated that for several months he and the council president and police chief have negotiated a contract with the Police Department union. Some progress has been made, but some outlying issues could not be resolved. The issues include wages and the union's request for an increase in the cap far the medical benefit. Since final considerations were not reached, the State Department of Labor was contacted and requested to pmvide a mediator to come to the city to help work together to establish an agreement. The mediator attended four sessions and some progress was made. However, the mediator suggested at the last meeting that the union come up with its best final offer. Bill emphasized that this is a lengthy process and will need to be considered carefully with regard to how it will affect the city's bottom line. At the last session when the union was asked to come up with its best and final offer, the city was not allowed to do so. Bill stated the need to make contact with the mediator to see if the city could provide its offer and come up with a solution. At the end of the last session with the mediator, it was clear that her view was that it needed to go to azbitration. Arbitration is a fairly rigid and very specific manner in which we came up with a final agreement. Before going to arbitration, the city needs to exhaust all possibilities of mediation and will do that. Information regarding the effects of the proposed items was distributed to the council. Mary explained the information regarding the possible impact to the budget. The police union proposed wage increases of 4 percent and 4.5 percent and the city's proposal is for 3 or 3.5 percent wage increases. The information showed the impact on wages and benefits but not on operation and maintenance. The police union also proposed a $75 increase in the insurance cap for employees. 4 Council Workshop Minutes of 7uly 8, 2008 Mayor Olson called for a short recess at this time. A$er the recess, copies of the police union's last best offer were distributed to the council. Mayor Olson stated that discussion regarding the proposal will be on the July 29th council workshop agenda. Legal council will make sure that the city is on schedule with the process. • Council Issues: o Discussion of LMC 6.1 b.030 (Mark Mace) Mark Mace stated that a constituent contacted him about an incident when a dog killed a cat. The issue is that the code is too lenient, since LMC allows three strikes for a dog and state statute only allows one strike. The dog was not licensed and the owners feel badly about the situation. Mark requested that the Emergency Services Committee review this issue again. When Mayor Olson asked if there were any comments from the public, Bob Buikema, 810 6th Avenue, addressed the council. His wife owns the dog that killed the neighbor's cat. He was nat awaze that a dog license was required, as they lived in the county for twenty years. He has offered to pay Mr. Metzger for the costs of cremation. They have impact letters to give the judge at their court date soon. The council discussed the issue and whether it should be reviewed by the Emergency Services Carninittee or a task force. The issue will be on the July 21st Emergency Services Committee agenda for discussion regarding the best way to proceed. There will also be further discussion at the council workshop on July z9th. o Possible handling of the CIP manual (Chuck Dickerson) Chuck explained his thought to require council members to return manuals, including the CIP document, when their term of o#I-ice ends. The current policy will be reviewed and then discussed further at the July 29"' council workshop. Other items: Doug Poehls stated that there is a car pazked in the alley of Yellowstone and Woodland Avenues. He did not know if this is a police or code enforcement issue. Mayor Olson stated that, with the appointment of Bill Sheridan as the chief administrative officer, the council can now take issues to him. Mark Mace attended the free concert by Rob Quist at St. John's in Billings recently. There were about 5,000 people in attendance, and Mazk expressed concern regarding the number of people that could attend the concert at Riverside Park in August. Chuck Dickerson stated that the Centennial Committee will meet on Thursday, July 10th, at 7:00 p.m. Chuck commended Emelie Eaton for her part with The Centennial book that was sold at the all-class reunion last weekend. Norm Stamper commended the fue department, Chamber of Commerce, and the Centennial Committee on the successful 4th of July events last weekend. Emelie Eaton thanked Gay Easton for his part in The Centennial book. Thirty copies of the book were sold in an hour at the reunion. 5 Council Workshop Minutes of July 8, 200$ Mayor Olson mentioned the fire facility safety mill to make sure that council understands the timeline required. Two proposals for sites will be comin~ forwazd. Mayor Olson stated that the information will be presented at the council workshop on July 29t . The fire department supports one of the sites, but it is important to review all options. The council needs to make a decision by August St'' and August 19th is the deadline to have the documents ready to put the issue on the November ballot. Chief Wilm stated that the department will give their presentation to city residents and the fire districts. When the fire department handed out information during ticket sales far the 4th, support was overwhelming at that time. Mayor Olson stated that the storm water project will be coming forwazd in the fall. This project has been tied to a commitment from TIFD dollazs. Mayor Olson received information from legal staff on the creation of a TIFD Boazd and will have something ready for the council's consideration at the July 29th council workshop. Mayor Olson asked if the council had received complaints and concerns about fireworks set off by residents over the 4th of July. There was a lengthy discussion regarding comments received, concerns, and the need to address the issues. Discussion of the state statute on fireworks will be on the July 29th council workshop agenda. Mayor Olson stated that the billboard about Laurel's Centennial should be up this week. Review ofdraft council agenda for July 15, 2008 There were no changes to the draft council agenda. Attendance at the Jul 15th council rneetin All council members will attend. Announcements Mayor Olson stated that the next council workshop will be on July 29t}t, since there are five Tuesdays in July. There will be no meeting on July 22°d The council workshop adjourned at 8:36 p.rn. 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. 6 ti ~ Montana League of Cities and Towns Legislative Meetings coos Introduction This paper provides background information on issues that aze important to cities and towns across Montana as the League prepares for the 2009 Legislature. It is intended as a guide for the discussion during the District Legislative meetings that will beheld in 13 locations across the state to solicit comments and suggestions from the lazgest cities and smallest towns on possible legislation and policy positions. The information gathered at these meetings will be presented to the Legislation-Resolutions Committee which will put together the 2009 Legislative Package. These positions will then be reviewed by the Board of Directors and approved by the membership at the fall meeting. Economics and the State Genexal Fand The Montana economy continues to expand. The mortgage crisis and problems in the housing industry that are pounding the national economy aze a distant thunder in our state. Summer is coming, and while the forecast calls for continued blue skies, there are looming clouds of economic doubt on the edge of the horizon. There are bright prospects: • commodity prices, particulazly far copper, oil and grain, are at record levels • neazly 15,000 new jobs were created last yeaz • salary and wage income increased mare than 8% over the same period. And reasons for concern: • employment growth may have peaked last summer • corporate income tax collections are falling • the crisis in the credit and housing mazkets may yet hit the Montana construction industry, which is one of the sectors driving growth in Montana. The prospects of new programs for local government or increased state transfers to cities and towns are directly linked to economic conditions. State revenues are driven by wage and salary income, corporate profits, commodity prices, interest rates and other conditions. The boom years that preceded the 2007 Legislature produced a general fund surplus of neazly $1 billion. Those were good times and the Legislature increased funding for schools, the university system and state institutions and agencies while stabilizing public pension programs, increasing employee wages and sending $400 checks to most Montana properly owners. These programs and promotions cost a lot of money, and the Legislature left town last May with a projected budget surplus of $182 million. Since that time, revenue collections are exceeding estimates by more than $60 million, and while there may never be another financial bonanza like 2007, the state should complete the current biennium in solid condition. ~° Soendin~ Pressures More money than most people can imagine sometimes is not enough, particularly when there is a hole in the bucket. The competition for appropriations in the 2009 Legislature will be fierce. School administrators estimate it will be necessary for the state to add $260 million in state funding to comply with the constitutional provision that requires but does not define "a quality education". At the end of April, state agencies asked for an additional $~03 million in the "wish list" phase of the state budget game. These requests will be whacked dawn to reason by the Governor's Budget Office and the Legislature, but they aze indicative of the fantasies that aze presented for consideration every time the state is sitting on a fat budget cushion. There are other considerations like wild fires, court decisions, ballot measures and other disasters that will be part of the calculation of how much money is available and where it will be spent. Cities must be at the table for these discussions to protect the entitlement program and promote the possibility of a partnership with the state to finance desperately needed capital projects. Munici al Finance and the Structural Imbalance For many yeazs, legislative budget analysts were concerned about a structural imbalance in the state general fund. They argued that each year the state was spending more than it collected. Budgets were balanced with accounting tricks and transfers from earmarked accounts and mysterious pots of money hidden deep in the treasury. This was a formula for financial disaster and while the boom years have eased the problem, it is a continuing concern. Local governments now are the public agencies that are attempting to manage structural imbalances in their general fixnds. Revenues are limited by statute while costs are being jacked up by inflation, wage and salary pressures, service demands and state and federal mandates. Most cities are operating on subsistence budgets and digging into reserves to bring revenues and expenditures into alignment. The structural imbalance in municipal budgets is more serious and dangerous than. the problem faced by the state, because local governments have very little authonity to increase revenue. The Wheel Horse of Public Finance The property tax is the wheel horse of public finance in Montana. It supports cities, counties, schools, some special districts, the University System and a share of the state budget. It is stable, predictable, reasonably progressive, generally condemned and absolutely essential to maintain adequate services at all levels of government across the state. There was a time when the property tax was balanced and fair. In those days, natural resource industries paid about 30 percent of total collections which reduced the pressure on residential and commercial property. Today, natural resources comprise about 10 percent of the base, business equipment taxes have been cut and 'the load has been shifted to homeowners. Property tax reform bills have been introduced in every session of the Legislature since territorial days, and there have been measures on the ballot for the last 20 years to cap, limit or abolish assessments. There has been a lot of noise, but very little progress. True reform, laws that will actually balance or reduce assessments, depend on a simple understanding -- Montana needs another tax horse to help turn the wheel. The Riddle of O tions For more than 20 years, the League of Cities has offered a practical answer to the many questions about. the fairness and balance of the Montana tax system. The municipal association has proposed bills that would allow every city, town and county to enact resort taxes with the approval of local voters. These tax proposals have been tested and proven in Whitefish, West Yellowstone and other resort towns and districts. They offer many advantages: • tourists and other travelers who use municipal services pay a fair share of the casts instead of laying the entire bill off on local property owners • a report by the Department of Revenue prepared for the 2003 Legislature indicated that nearly 4$% of the collections from a statewide resort tax would come from nonresidents • public support increases as people became accustomed to the benefits of the tax • the tax is reasonably progressive because it relies on discretionary spending and does not apply to "the necessities of life" • property taxes come dawn, which is affirmed by the fact that West Yellowstone and Whitefish have the lowest city levies in Western Montana • businesses support these ordinances because of vendor allowances, community improvements and cleaz evidence that refutes the notion that a local tax will drive business out of town • the resort tax raises money to cover the costs of services and facilities that are beyond the financial reach of most other cities. The big question then is why has the Legislature refused to authorize option taxes for all local governments? Many Republicans oppose local option authority because they believe it will be an impediment to the enactment of a general sales tax. This is a fallacious excuse because 10 years ago voters thumped a sales tax referendum by a 4-1 margin and there has not been genuine interest or serious discussion of this toxic issue during any subsequent session of the Legislature. Some Democrats vote no because they have vowed to fight any and all sales tax propositions for the full measure of time they aze allotted under term limits. Those members representing rural azeas see local sales taxes as a way for the big cities to reach out and touch their constituents. The provision to share some of the revenues with smaller towa~ass and rural counties, included in recent local option. bills, beat down same of this apposition but it wasn't enough to get anything more than a closer vote. Cities have tried and failed to pass local tax bills in every session of the Legislature since 1981. This approach has not worked, and success will depend an support from a broader coalition of interests that includes Main Street businesses, the local Chambers of Commerce, police and fire unions, counties and public interest organizations that are concerned about declining services, deteriorating public works and increasing property taxes. Cities may also want to consider other funding possibilities that could include: + a local option accommodations tax that would raise more than $12 million if it - was imposed across the board at a rate of 3 percent. Under this approach, nonresidents would pay about 70% of the tax • distribution to local governments of the 3% accommodations tax that was added to balance the state budget during the 2003 Legislature. Entitlement Payments The 2001 Legislature passed the "Big Bill" (HB-124) that provides a stable and predictable stream of revenue from the state to cities, towns, consolidated governments and counties. Under this measure, local governments relinquished claim to gambling, motor vehicle, wine, beer, liquor and financial institutions tax disbursements in exchange for payments that aze geazed to the performance of the state economy. Since 2001, distributions from the entitlement account to cities and towns increased from $4Q.60 million to $52.4$ million. This is a 29% increase which averages out to 3.G5% in each of the eight years. A table showing estimated payments for FY09 is attached to this report. Inflatioa Adjustment Under Section 15-10-420, MCA, local governments are allowed to increase property tax collections by one half the rate of inflation averaged over the preceding three years. In 2007, the Senate passed a bill to allow collections to increase by the full rate of inflation. The House Taxation Committee tabled this measure for reasons that made very little sense. This is a fair proposal that may be resubmitted in 2009. Capital Projects Funding In the current two-year fiscal cycle, 56 capital improvement projects in cities, towns and counties across the state received grants from the Treasure State Endowment Program totaling more than $32.6 million. The Department of Commerce initially approved 31 applicants for grants. The 2007 Legislature added an additiona125 projects at an estimated cost of $14 million and ordered the department to borrow the money to cover the difference. The department estimates that about $19 million will be available for the 2009 biennium. This total could be cut if the program has to begin repaying the 2007 loan. Grant applications for 2009 have been received from 65 local governments and special districts. Cities attempted to persuade the 2007 Legislature to approve cone-time $40 million public facilities funding package. This bill was based on the legitimate argument that a fair portion of the $1 billion state surplus should be invested in capital projects. This proposal would have improved public safety, convenience and service while creating jobs and reducing pressure on mill levies and special assessments to finance these projects. A similar proposal is less likely to be fairly considered in the coming session of the Legislature because a lot of the air has been let out of the $ l billion state budget balloon. Tax Increment Financing The Department of Revenue recently conducted a hearing on proposed rules to clarify the intent and application of the tax increment financing statutes. There are differing legal opinions on the authority of the state to control local functions through rule making authority that really only applies to the general supervision of tax policy. This issue is likely to be decided by the next Legislature. ,. Special Improvement Districts An interim legislative committee is working on a comprehensive revision of the special improvement district laws. This study was initiated by the Association of Counties to provide uniformity in the administration of special districts. Municipal districts are generally used to generate revenue for special purposes like water and sewer systems and street construction and maintenance. These districts do not have administrative problems because they aze managed by the city and routinely audited. The committee appeazs to be focusing on county issues.as this study proceeds and. significant changes in the municipal SID laws will probably not be part of the package that is recommended to the full legislature. Land Use In the last 20 years, Missoula is the only city in Montana that grew at a faster rate than the unincorporated area of the county in which it is located. The explosive development surrounding cities has caused a lot of heat, friction and political fire. The consequences are obvious in the Legislature where land use issues burn up more time and lobbying effort than all of the bills in the other categories on the municipal `watch list". In recent sessions we have worked for or against bills to: • allow incarporation within three miles of an existing city as a method of preventing annexation • reduce the protest pravisians for sanitary sewer districts • revise the density requirements for incorporation • prohibit annexation across county boundaries • revise planning, zoning and subdivision statutes • continually revise the laws that apply to growth policies. Many of these questions were left hanging without a conclusive answer. Most will show up again when the Legislature convenes next winter. Water Quality Water quality is among the most difficult, divisive and dangerous issues in our state, because the problems have been ignored forever and the state is just beginning to consider a fair and balanced regulatory approach. Cities are regulated while many other sources of pollution, including septic systems and agriculture, are exempt from standards or simply ignored. The League is working through a special Water Quality Committee to assure that cities aze not forced to comply with standards that cannot be justified by science or economics. Municipal ratepayers should not be expected to compensate for the continuing failure to regulate or at least recognize other sources of pollution that threaten state waters. Cities are conunitted to water quality, but they cannot accept a regulatory regime that does not stand up to scientific inquiry, economic analysis, common sense or any basic test of fairness. Public Safety abd General Administration Results from the last session of the Legislature and discussions with interest groups indicate that there is a reasonable prospect that the Legislature will be asked to deal with the following issues: • firefighters may ask for a change in law to provide that overtime pay is included in the calculation of retirement benefits • West Yellowstone may arrange for the introduction of a bill to remove the age limitation on paid firefighters • there is continuing interest in legislation to require the payment of demolition costs on abandoned buildings from casualty insurance proceeds • construction and maintenance contracts between the Department of Transportation and cities have opened up disagreements that may have to be referred to higher authority • finally, any other good, bad or nonsensical idea that could be covered by the general assumption that "there ought to be a law". Montana Department of Revenue _,~ v Dan Bucks Brian schweitzer Director Governor TO: Tom Hayes, Department of Administration FROM: Vern Fogle, Tax Policy Analyst DATE: April 4, 2008 RE: Inflation Factor far Mill Levy Calculation in 15-1020, MCA For FY2009 I have calculated the inflation factor to be used in the mill levy calculation as prescribed by 15-1 D-420, MCA for FY2009. Under that statute the Department of Revenue is required to "calculate one-half of the average rate of inflation for the prior 3 years by using the consumer price index, U.S. city average, all urban consumers, using the 19$2-84 base of 100, as published by the bureau of labor statistics of the United States department of labor". The rate of inflation for the three years prior to 2008 can be measured from December 2004 to December 2007. The U.S. City average CPI-U, not seasonally adjusted, was 190.3 for December 2004 and 210.03fi for December 2007. These values can be found at http://data.bls.gov. The average annual inflation rate over this period is 3.344%. That is, if you grow the value of 190.3 three times at 3.344% each time, the result will be 210.036. 1 190.3 x 1.03344 = 196.7 2 196.7 x 1.D3344 = 2D3.2 3 203.2 x 1.03344 = 210.036 One-half of 3.344% is 1:672%. "" ~~. ~""' "_~. ~._".,.,~_. ,,_,,., P .~~., ~ This is an increase from the 1.535% value used in the mill levy calculation for fiscal year 200$. If you have any other questions please contact me at 444-1821. Cc: Harold Blattie, MACo Alec Hansen, MLCT Randy Wilke, DOR PAD Customer Service (406) 444-6900 ~ TDD (406) 444-2830 ~ www.mt.gov/revenue ssri~e Id: cuuROOOr~spa April ~, 2008 Not Ssaeonally Ad}teled lima: 1f.5 . city e~erege Item Alf Hems BasePerlo@ 1982~4~100 Dec 161.5 161 .9 1b2.2 162.5 1 b2.8 163 1fi3,2 163.4 163.6 Ib4 154 163.4 153 162.3 163.7 164.3 164.5 165 166.2 168.2 166.2 15 6.7 167,1 167.9 16 8.2 168.3 168,3 166.6 165+4 167.8 168.8 164.8 i71~2 171.3 171.5 172.4 172.6 172.8 173.7 174 174.1 174 172.2 170.8 173.6 175.1 175.8 17b.2 176.4 177.7 178 177.5 177.5 178.3 177.7 177.4 175.7 177.1 176.6 177.5 r 177.1 I77.B 178.6 179.8 179.8 179.9 180.1 180.7 181 181.3 181.3 180.9 179.9 178.9 180.9 B 1 3. 1B .B 3. .9 1 .6 1 .2 B4. 8 .3 84 18 4. 2004 185.2 186.2 .1B7A 168 189.1 189.7 189.4 189,5 169.4 190.9 191 190.3 188.9 187.6 190.2 2005 190.7 191.6 193.3 294.6 19+3.4 144.5 195A 196A 198.8 199.2 197.6 I9raB 195.3 193.2 197.4 2D06 198.3 198.7 199.8 201.5 202.5 202.9 203.5 203.9 202.9 201.6 2D1.5 20I.9 201.6 200.6 202.5 ZBp~ 202816 203A49 2D5~382 20b.69 207.95 208.352 208.299 2D7. i7 08.49 8.9 6 210.177 21 .Q316 20 .34 205.1 06.98 r 211A8 211.643 u ~ s- o m • o iEeratlra 1rif1lhfltd CPI-li C Pl-U Year D 2004 140.3 YearD 2004 190.3 Year3 2DD7 210.036 Year3 20D7 -210.036 pub ad 3.43933 Calculate compound graruth !actor 1.D33439 1100 D.D3343933 minus 1 = compound grawth.rabe O.D33439 3.34496 plus: t 1 .03343933 hfl odf ~tiiar ~ro~lilfh f~1(D D 1 ~ Raised m >n e p aver. 3 1.1037D99A$ x CPI-Uy,~ 190.3 = CPi-~yr3(a:lalalarD 29 O.D360D31 VERlFICAtlOh1: error O AOOD03 Ye ar0 2D04 190.a CPI-l1~ ~~~ 21 O.D36 times: 1.03344 Year1 2DD5 t96.T 3-yrrate of irflatiori 3.3439396 times: 1.0~33A4 Year2 2006 203.5 Departrnertot Revenue half of 3 yr rate 1.6719796 times: f .03344 afflce of Tax Pdfcy& Resea-ch roour3ded m 3places 'Year3 2D07 Z90.0©B Vern Fogle, er:onomist hsl~ ors rite 1 ST~i Table 3 Calculation of FY 2009 Entitlement Share Payment for CitieslTowns preliminary FY2oo$ Entitlement Share Albertan Bainville Baker Bearcreek Belgrade Belt Big Sandy Big Timber Billings Boulder Bozeman Bridger Broadus Broadview Brockton Browning Chinook Choteau Circle Clyde Park Colstrip Columbia Falls Columbus Cut Bank Deer Lodge Denton Dillon Dodson Drummond Dutton East Helena Ekalaka Ennis Eureka Fairfield FY2009 City Share of Growth 49,274.19 - 38,707.52 - 177,022.42 - 3,779.03 - 536,$51.62 - 84,753.80 - 51,530.24 - 155,304.10 - 9,965,273.44 - 122,818.72 - 2,973,779.63 - 140,392.21 - 57,6D9.98 - 21,666.00 - 9;098.27 - 44,780.97 - 63,355.52 - 86,847.56 - 182,300.$1 - 131,951.84 - 60,930.33 - 31,285.29 - 753,101.82 - 518,741.44 - 335,498.37 - 256,637.37 - 82,372.96 - 474,295.95 - 123,290.$0 - 341,083.38 - 23,417.78 - 430,051.30 - 11,697.$2 - 30,203.74 - 37,587.85 - 48,424.77 - 103,485.87 - 92,667.40 - 72,840.33 - 2,046.55 1,212.69. 7,428.68 262.18 27,489.62 3,200.1 B 2,485.45 7,216.05 436,617.35 5,805.76 141,213.39 4,801.80 2,275.4$ 810.62 699.99 3,223.37 3,071.72 3,548.02 6,879.33 6,529.01 2,568.71 1,436.$6 22,399.23 21,713.91 11,781.87 11,192.15 3,370.29 17,526.74 4,628.68 14,664.42 1,123.76 18,282.18 488.42 1,363.52 1,609.7D 14,79$.75 1,930.38 4,472.36 4,245.90 2,985.80 FY2009 Entitlement Share = 51,320.74 - 39,920.21 - 184,451.10 - 4,041.21 - 564,341.24 _ $7,953.96 = 54,015.69 = 162,520.15 = 10,401,$90.79 = 128,624.49 = 3,114,983.02 = 145,194.01 - 59,8$5.45 - 22,476.62 = 9,798:26 - 48,004.34 - 66,427.24 - 90,395.57 - 189,180.14 - 138,480.85 - 63,499.04 - 32,722.15 = 775,501.05 - 540,455.35 - 347,280.25 - 267,829.52 - 85,743.24 - 491,822.69 - 127,919.48 - 355,747.81 24,541.54 - 448,333.49 - 12,186.24 - 31,567.25 - 39,197.55 = 465,147.11 - 50,355.15 - 107,958.22 - 96,913.29 - 75,826.13 FY2009 Quarterly 12,$30.18 9,9$0.05 46,112.77 1,010.30 141,0$5.31 21,98$.49 13,503.92 40,630.04 2,600,472.70 32,156.12 778,748.25 36,298.50 14,971.36 5,619.15 2,449.56 12,001.09 16,606.81 22,598.89 47,295.03 34,620.21 15,874.76 8,180.54 193,875.26 135,113_$4 s6,$za.as 66,957.3$ 21,435.81 122,955.67 31,979.87 88,936.95 6,135.38 112,0$3.37 3,046.56 7,891.81 9,799.39 116,286.78 12,588.79 28,989.56 24,22$.32 18,956.53 .* Table 3 Calculation of FY 2p09 Entitlement Share Payment for CitieslTowns preliminary ~r2oos Entitlement Share Fairview 101,442.84 - Flaxville 5,315.83 - Farsyth 245,282.27 - Fort Benton 145,886.55 - Fort Peck 10,823.43 - Froid 15,608.17 - Fromberg 25,167,86 - Geraldine 14,267.80 - Glasgow 394,157.46 - Glendive 522,520.35 - Grass Range 7,809.87 - Great Falls 5,915,424.28 - Hamilton 816,557.39 - Hardin 5$9,418.91 - Harlem 112,416.41 - Harlowton 119,715.74 - Havre 1,122,471.89 - Helena 3,020,604.05 - Hingham 6,748.54 - Hobson 21,552.99 - Hot Springs 33,592.19 - Hysham 23,496.72 - Ismay 836.37 - Joliet 33,784.51 - Jordan 30,856.88 - Judith Gap 10,144.13 - Kalispell 2,211,244.85 - Kevin 16,118.44 - Laurel 682,333.36 - ~~ Lavina 6,250.35 - Lewistown 693,388.65 - Libby 425,056,46 - Lima 18,337.44 - Livingston 866,332.91 - Lodge Grass 17,584.48 - Malta 214,$08.73 - Manhattan 115,690.03 - Medicine Lake 18,034.73 - Mclstone 7,169.28 - Miles City 939,139.22 - FY2009 city Share of Growth FY2009 Entitlement Share Pa ent FY2009 Quarterly Pa ent 3,740.84 ~ = 105,183.68 /4- 26,295.92 276.52 = 5,592.35 /4= 1,398.09 9,574.76 = 254,857.03 /4= 63,714.26 6,372.37 = 152,258.92 /4- 3$,064.73 700.75 = 11,524.17 /4= 2,881.04 772.17 = 16,380.33 /4= 4,095.08 1,568.01 = 26,735.87 /4= 6,683.97 $45.24 = 15,113.04 /4= 3,778.26 15,17$.86 = 409,336.32 /4= 102,334,0$ 21,602.04 = 544,122.39 /4= 136,030.60 476.90 = 8,286.77 /4= 2,071.69 251,958.22 = 6,167,382.50 /4= 1,541,$45.63 28,624.50 = 845,181.89 /4= 211,295.47 20,924.43 = 610,343.35 /4= 152,585.84 4,252.80 = 116,669.21 /4~- 29,167.30 4,601.54 = 124,317.28 /4= 31,079.32 45,363.10 = 1,167,834.99 i4- 291,958.75 127,267.31 = 3,147,871.36 /4= 786,967.84 463.80 = 7,212.34 /4- 1,803.08 956.55 = 22,509.54 /4= 5,627.38 1,908.00 = 35,500.19 /4= 8,875.05 1,065.55 = 24,562.2$ /4= 6,140.57 69.86 = 906.23 /4- 226:56 2,031.58 = 35,816.08 /4- 8,954.02 1,434.78 = 32,291.66 I4= 8,072.92 514.93 = 10,659.07 /4 2,664.77 91,615.34 = 2,302,860.19 /4- 575,715.05 664.45 = 16,782.89 /4- 4,195.72 28,962.81 = 711,296.17 /4= 177,824.04 619.96 = 6,870.31 /4~ 1,717.58 28,542.66 = 721,931.31 /4= 180,482.83 15,343.74 = 440,400.20 /4-- 110,100.05 883.71 = 19,221.15 /4= 4,805.29 35,038.54 = 901,371.45 /4- 225,342.86 1,452.81 = 19,037.28 /4= 4,759.32 8,818.02 = 223,626.76 /4-- 55,906.69 5,72$.12 = 121,418.15 /4- 30,354.54 867.48 = 18,902.21 /4 4,725.55 448.47 = 7,617.75 /4= 1,904.44 38,271.59 ~_~ 977,410.81 ~/4=~ 244,352.70 ,: Table 3 Calculation of FY 209 Entitlement Share Payment for Cities/7owns preliminary FY2008 Entitlement Share Missoula 5,787,843.92 Moore 10,905.97 Vashua 25,709.89 Veihart 3,944.48 3pheim $,2$1.45 3utlook 3,279.42 Philipsburg 90,844.86 Pinesdale 21,239.26 Plains 178,420.45 Plentywood 206,133.52 Plevna 10,841.22 Palson 485,868.80 Poplar 100,613.16 Red Lodge 293,989.18 Rexford 13,578.42 Richey 8,909.60 Ronan ~ 253,142.08 Roundup 207,261.36 Ryegate 17,433.91 Saco 16,108.69 Scobey 95,511.59 Shelby 37D,192.43 Sheridan 42,130.25 Sidney 591,434.72 Stanford 42,713.67 Stevensville 136,990.12 St. Ignatius 37,590.17 Sunburst 24,031.17 Superior 134,666.42 Terry 65,721.72 Thompson Fatls 267,951.58 Three Forks 124,568.01 Townsend 212,346.42 Troy 126,473.42 Twin Bridges 29,450.49 Valier 31,693.69 ,Virginia City 20,721.73 Walkerville 22,347.39 West Yellowstone 213,874.68 Westby 17,137.75 FY2009 City Share of Grnwtl~ FY2009 Entitlement Share Pa me nt FY2009 Quarterly Pa ment 265,575.13 = _ .,, A6,053,419.05 /4= 1,513,354.76 630.17 = 11,536.15 /4= 2,884.04 1,195.99 = 26,905.88 /4= 6,726.47 269.34 = 4,213,82 /4= 1,053.45 396.57 = 8,67$.02 /4- 2,169.50 214.53 = 3,493.95 /4= 873.49 4,026.37 = 94,$71.23 /4= 23,717.81 2,19$.63 = 23,437.90 /4= 5,859.47 6,521.22 = 185,041.66 /4= 46,260.42 8,302.64 = 214,436.16 /4- 53,609.04 517.56 = 11,358.78 /4= 2,839.$9 21,468.96 = 507,337.7fi /4- 126,834.44 4,171.83 = 104,784.99 /4" 26,196.25 11,875.32 = 305,864.50 /4= 76,466.13 628.99 = 14,207.41 /4= 3,551.$5 564.18 = 9,473.78 /4= 2,36$.44 10,005:23 = 263,147.31 /4= 65,786.$3 8,$01.88 = 216,063.24 /4- 54,015.$1 1,018.15 = 18,452.06 /4- 4,613.01 77$.27 = 16,8$4.96 /4= 4,221.24 4,155.65 = 99,867.24 /4= 24,916.$1 15,603.06 = 385,795.49 /4= 96,448.87 2,400.06 = 44,530.31 /4= 11,132.58 23,588.70 = 615,023.41 /4= 153,755.85 1,837.76 = 44,551.43 /4= 11,137.86 7,102.56 = 144,092.67 /4- 36,023.17 2,546.22 = 40,136.39 /4= 10,034.10 1,231.49 = 25,262_fi6 /4= 6,315.67 5,009.93 = 139,676.35 /4= 34,919.D9 2,639.71 = 68,361.43 /4= 17,090.36 $,922.96 = 276,874.54 /4= 69,21$.63 6,645.45 = 131,213.46 /4= 32,$03.36 8,969.63 w 221,316.06 /4= 55,329.01 4,974.95 = 131,448.37 /4- 32,$62.09 1,547.33 = 30,997.82 /4= 7,749.45 1,684.$0 = 33,378.49 /4Y 8,344.62 763.15 w 21,484.88 /4= 5,371.22 1,912.47 = 24,259.85 /4- 6,064.96 7,506.37 = 221,381.05 /4- 55,345.26 6$9,36 = 17,827.11 14 4,456.78 Table 3 Calculation of FY 2009 Entitlement Share Payment for Citiesll'owns preliminary Entitlement Share Springs Tohdls 107,954.03 595,304.95 136,844.10 77,fi28.49 10,034.98 17,030.55 279,397.84 50,328,545.14 FYZ009 City Share of Growth FY2009 Entitlement Share Pa ment FY2009 .Quarterly Pa ment - ,...ervrv... .:a. _~y,~,;; i m 4, 551.51 = w,w. ,te'r~.~c:ar• ...u-ys,r.~ ~ 112, 505.54 /4- .. i . c.... a_ ~:e. +- 28,126.39 29,854.42 = 625,159.37 /4= 156,289.$4 - 5,5fi9.27 = 142,413.3fi /4- 35,fi03.34 - 2,7$8.90 = $0,417.40 /4- 20,104.35 - 536.$fi - 10,571.84 /4 2,642.96 - 757.07 = 17,787.62 /4= 4,446.90 - 11,809.22 = 291,207.06 /4~ 72,801.77 2,154,Ofi1.74 52,482,606.88 13,120,651.fi7 «.....r.... ....,r .. Montana Department of Tax Policy & Research REVEN Sam W. Mitchell Building iY Date: November 14, 2002 P. ~. Box 5805 Helena, Montana 59604-5805 To: Governor's Local Option Tourist Tax Advisory Council From: Dan Dodds, Tax Policy Analyst Subject: Potential Collections by County Table 1 shows estimates of the revenue that would be collected in each county in 2004 from a 1 % local option tourist tax. Table 1 Local Option Tourist Tax Collections 1% Tax Rate in all Counties in 2004 Percent of Percent of Collections in Statewide Collections in Statewide County County Collections County County Collections Beaverhead $159,000 0.89% Madison $56,000 0.32% eig Harn $130,000 0.73% Meagher $19,000 0.10% Blaine $70,000 0.39% Mineral $46,000 D.26% Broadwater $29,ODD 0.16% Missoula $2,451,000 13.73% Carbon $75,000 0.42% Musselshell $36,DOq 0.20% Carter $6,D00 0.03% Park $235,000 1.32% Cascade $1,841,OD0 10.32% Petroleum $2,OOD 0.01 Chouteau $77,000 0.43% Phillips $7i,D00 0.40% Custer $260,D00 1.46% Ponders $119,000 0.66% Daniels $71,000 0.40% Powder River $21,000 0.12% Dawson $160,000 0.89% Powell $36,D00 0.20% Deer Lodge $114,D00 0.64% Prairie $12,000 0.07% Fallon $52,000 0.29% Ravalli $412,D00 2.31 Fergus $205,000 1.15% Richland $192,000 1.07% Flathead $1,597,OOD 8.95% Roosevelt $122,000 0.68% Gallatin $1,629,000 9.13% Rosebud $97,000 D.54% Garfield $10,DOD 0.06% Sanders $76,OD0 D.43% Glacier $163,000 0.91% Sheridan $60,000 0.34% Golden Valley $7,000 0.04% Silver Bow $764,DD0 4.28% Granite $30,D00 0.17% Stillwater $109,D00. 0.61% Hill $323,000 1.81% Sweet Grass $83,000 0.46% Jefferson $41,000 0.23% Teton $115,D00 D.64% Judith Basin $10,000 0.06% Toole $55,000 0.31% Lake $361,DOD 2.02% Treasure $5,000 D.03% Lewis and Clark $1.214,000 6.8D% Valley $122,000 0.68% Liberty $25,000 0.14% Wheatland $24,000 0.14% Lincoln $210,000 1.18% Wibaux $7,000 O:D4% McCone $18,000 0.10% Yellowstone $3,613,000 2024% Total $17,846,000 100.00% Judy Poynter, Administrator Telephone (406) 4442554 :Fax (406) 444-3696 :` Internet Address http://www.discoveringmontana.com/revenue Table 1 also shows estimated percentages of statewide collections that would occur in each county if all counties adopted a 1 % local option tourist tax. These percentages are equal to each county's percentage of statewide retail sales reported by the 1997 Economic Gensus_ Table 2 shows estimates of the revenue that would be collected in 2004 from a 1 % local option tourist tax in each of the seven largest cities in the state. Far each city, it shows collections in the city, in the rest of the county that contains the city, and total collections in the county. It also shows the percentage of statewide collections in each area, assuming that all cities and counties adopt the tax. Table 2 Local option Tourist Tax Collections in Seven Largest Cities 1% Tax Rate in all Cities and Counties in 2D04 Percent of Statewide City and County Collections Collections Great Falls $1,795,000 10.06% Rest of Coun $46,000 0.26% Cascade County $1,841,000 10.32% Kalispell $492,000 2.76% Rest of Caun $1,105,000 5.19% Flathead County $1,597,000 8.95% Bozeman $951,000 5.33% Rest of County _ _ _ $fi78,000 3.79% Gallatin County $1,629,000 9.13% Helena Rest of County Lewis and Clark County Missoula Rest of County __ _ Missoula County $892,000 5.00% $322,OOD 1.80% $1,214,000 6.80% $2,27D,000 12.72% $181,000 1.02% $2,451,000 13.73% Butte-Silver Bow $751,000 Rest of Coun $13,000 Silver Bow County $764,000 Billings $3,283,000 Rest of County _~ $330,000 Yellowstone County $3,613,000 4.21 0.07% 4.28% 18.40% 1.85% 2o.24°i° H:1D0 GEN\TPFt - NE1MGovemors Committees\Local Option Tourist Tax Committee\Meeting 3\CountyRevenue.doc June 20, 2008 President Smelser and Board of Directors Montana League of Cities and Towns P.O. Box 1704 Helena, Montana 59624-1704 President Smelser and Board Members: Recommendation to Award a Consultant Contract for Water and Wastewater Regulatory Issues Assistance This memo is to recommend the MLCT Board of Directors award a consultant contract for Water and Wastewater Regulatory Issues Assistance to HDR, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $30,000. The Board of Directors recently appointed a Water Quality Committee (WQC) to represent MLCT in discussions with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and advise the Board in matter; related to water and wastewater regulations. The WQC and DEQ have agreed to meet on a quarterly basis. This will provide a consistent channel of communications and allow MLCT to participate in the development of new regulations that will affect municipal water and wastewater utilities across the state. Although the immediate issue of concern is DEQ's development of a Tatal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process to regulate nutrients discharged to State waters, other issues such as the implementation of TMDL programs, storm water regulations, municipal water supplies, and water rights associated with wastewater effluent are waiting in the wings. The WQC's goal is to assist DEQ in developing practical, affordable regulations and programs to protect Montana's rivers, lakes and streams. The WQC identified the need for a qualified consultant to provide technical guidance and expertise. A Consultant Selection Subcommittee was appointed and a Request for Proposals was distributed to qualified consultants in late April. We received a single response from HDR, Inc., featuring David Clark who is a nationally recognized and respected expert on water quality issues. Several Montana cities, including Missoula, Bozeman and Kalispell, have worked with Dave and HDR in the past with very positive results. The proposed consultant agreement focuses specifically on water quality, nutrient removal, and related regulations. Other issues may be addressed under separate agreements at a later date. Once again, the Consultant Selection Subcommitte® to the MLCT Water Quality Committee - respectFully recommends the Board of Directors award a consultant contract for Water and Wastewater Regulatory Issues Assistance to HDR, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $30,000. Alec Hansen and Tim Burton will be available to answer questions at the Board meeting. Sincerely, John C. Wilson Whitefish Director of Public Works Consultant Selection Subcommittee Chairman ', r PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TffiS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 200 by and between the Montana League of Cities and Towns, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Montana, 316 North Park Avenue, Helena, Montana 59623, hereinafter referred to as "League," and HDR Engineering, lnc_ 171 S S Reserve St., Suite C Missoula, NTT 59801 hereinafter referred to as "Consultant." Tn consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency whereof being hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: X. Purpose: League agrees to hire Consultant as an independent contractor to perform for League services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. Effective Date; This Agreement is effective upon the date of its execution and will t ;Hate on the 30~' day of June, 2010. 3. Scone of Work; Consultant will perform the work and provide the services in accordance with the requirements of the Scope of Services. 4. Payment: League agrees to pay Consultant a total of fees not to exceed Twenty Eight Thousand Dollars Four Hundred Dollars ($28,400.00) for services performed pursuant to the Scope of Services. Any alteration or deviation from the described work that involves extra casts will be performed by Consultant after written request by the League, and will become an extra charge over and above the contract amount. The parties must agree upon any extra charges in writing. 5. Xndenendent Contractor Status: The parties agree that Consultant is an independent contractor for purposes of this Agreement and is not to be considered an employee of the League for any purpose. Consultant is not subject to the terms and provisions of the League's personnel policies handbook and may not be considered a League employee for workers' compensation or any other purpose. Consultant is not authorized to represent the League or otherwise bind the League in any dealings between Consultant and any third parties. Consultant shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act, Title 39, Chapter 71, MCA, and the occupational Disease Act afMontana, Title 39, Chapter 71, MCA. Consultant shall maintain workers' compensation coverage for all members and employees of Consultant's business, except far those members who are exempted by law. Consultant shall furnish the League with copies showing one of the following: (1) a binder for workers' compensation coverage by an insurer licensed and authorized to provide workers' compensation insurance in the State of Montana; or (Z) proof of exemption from workers' compensation granted by law far independent contractors. Revised 4/14/08 6. Indemni and Insurance: Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and save the League, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all losses, damage and liability occasioned by, growing out of, or in any way arising or resulting from any intentional or negligent act on the part of Consultant or Consultant's agents or employees. For this purpose, Consultant shall provide League with proof of Consultant's liability insurance issued by a reliable company or companies for personal injury and property damage, in an amount not less than $1.0 million for each occurrence. The. insurance must be in a form suitable to League. 7. Professional Service: Consultant agrees that all services and work performed hereunder will be accomplished in a professional manner. S. Com Vance with Laws: Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, axles and regulations, including the safety rules, codes, and provisions of the Montana Safety Act in Title S0, Chapter '71, MCA. Consultant agrees to purchase a League business license. 9. Nondiscrimination: Consultant agrees that all hiring by Consultant of persons performing this Agreement will be on the basis of merit and qualification and will not discriminate an the basis of race, color, religion, creed, political ideas, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, ar national origin. ].U. Default and Termination: If either party fails to comply with any condition of this Agreement at the time or in the manner provided for, the other party, at its option, may temunate this Agreement and be released from all obligations if the default is not cured within tea (10) days after written notice is provided to the defaulting party. Said notice shall set forth the items to be cured. Additionally, the non-defaulting party may bring suit for damages, specific performance, and any other remedy provided by law. These remedies aze cumulative and not exclusive. Use of one remedy does not preclude use of the others. Notices shall be provided in writing andhand-delivered or mailed to the parties at the addresses set forth in the fiurst paragraph of this Agreement. 11. Modification and Assignability: This document contains the entire agreement between the parties and no statements, promises or inducements made by either parry or agents of either party, which are not contained in this written Agreement, may be considered valid or binding. This Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except by written agreement signed by bothparties hereto. The Consultant may not subcontract ar assign Consultant's rights, including the right to compensation or duties arising hereunder, without the prior written consent of League. Any subcontractor or assignee will be bound by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 12. Ownership and Publication of Materials: All reports, infornlatian, data, and other materials prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement aze the property of the League. The League has the exclusive and unrestricted authority to release, publish or otherwise use, in whole or part, information relating thereto. Any re-use without written verification or adaptation by the Consultant far the specific purpose intended will be at the League's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. No material produced in whale or in part under this Agreement Revised 4/14/08 may be copyrighted or patented in the United States or in any other country without the prior written approval of the League. 13. Liaison: League's designated liaison with Consultant is Alec Hansen and Consultant's designated liaison with League is Dave Clazk. 14. A licabili :This Agreement and any extensions hereof shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Montana. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument the day and year first above written. Montana League of Cities and Towns sy Alec Hanson ~Q~ ~~ „ -- CONSULTANT (Print Name Above) By Print Name:Amanda B. Mclmnis Print Title: Vice President 3 Revised 4/14/08 Montana League of Cities and Towns Exhibit A Water/Wastewater Regulatory Issues Assistance Background The Montana League of Cities and Towns faces an evolving regulatory environment that includes a variety of drinking water and wastewater management issues. Emerging issues include new numeric nutrient criteria for rivers, new total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), TMDL implementation plans, and revised effluent discharge permitting requirements. In addition, non-point source issues associated with the proliferation of an- site septic systems, water rights issues, exempt wells, etc. will be important to Cities and Towns. This work plan is focused on providing the League with technical input and support to understand the implications of regulatory initiatives and the potential impacts on drinking water and wastewater utilities. The initial work effort includes two areas: • Task Order No.1 Water Quality and Nutrient Removal Issues Paper. A water quality and nutrient removal Issues Paper to capture the key trends and challenges associated with nutrient removal, restrictive discharge conditions, and effluent limits. • Task Order No. 2 MLCT Conference Calls and Meetings. Participate in conference calls and meeting with the League and its members. Future task orders will be used to address new and continuing issues. Work Plan The following work plan outlines an approach to the initial task orders. Task Order No.1 Water Quality and Nutrient Removal Issues Paper l.X Water Quality and Nutrient Removal Issues Paper. Formulate an Issues Paper to increase awareness of key nutrient removal issues for League members and Regulatory Agencies. Key issues include the challenges for wastewater utility managers in meeting restrictive effluent limits, expanding the understanding of the limits of treatment technology, and formulating appropriate effluent limits for low nutrient discharge permits. A prelimizxary outline of the Issues Paper is as follows: • Introduction o Key Nutrient Management Issues ^ Nationwide Occurrence ^ Typical Challenges Receiving Water Quality Issues o Water Quality Drivers a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process ^ In-stream Nutrient Target Setting Regulatory Issues Montana League of Cities and Towns • Narrative Nutrient Standards -- Historical • Numeric Nutrient Standards Initiatives -Emerging ^ EPA's Ecoregian Criteria ^ Water Quality Based EfIIuent Discharge Permits ^ Use Attainability Analysis ^ Water Quality Variances o Calls for Treatment Technology Standards for Nitrogen and Phosphorus o Regulatory Agency Perspectives • Nutrient Criteria Issues for Dischargers o Dependency on Receiving Waters o Applicability of Ecoregion Criteria to "Real World" Receiving Waters ^ Irrigation Diversions, Dewatering, Reservoirs and Impoundments, Artificial Flow Regimes, Draught (climate change), etc. o Limits of Treatment Technology o Point Source vs. Nonpoint Source Issues in Watershed Management o Economic Hardship Criteria • Treatment Technology o Available Treatment Technologies and Capabilities r ~,~ (gam) ^ Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) ^ Limits of Technology (LOT) • Refractory Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (BOON) • Refractory Dissolve Organic Phosphorus (RDOP) ^ Reference Facilities o Operational Performance ^ Effluent Variability in Reference Treatment Plauts • Effluent Discharge Permitting o Nutrient Discharge Permit Structures ^ Typical Permit Writer's Guidance o Challenges in Discharge Permit Structures ^ Translation of TMDL Requirements to Effluent Discharge Permits ^ Appropriate Averaging Periods for Nutrient Limits ^ Maximum Day and Maximum Week Dilemmas ^ Effluent Mixing Zones • Impaired Ambient Canditians ^ Permit Requirements Below the Limits of Technolagy for Treatment + Potential Approaches ^ Navel NPDES Discharge Permits ^ Watershed Based Permitting o Water Quality Off-sets and Trading • Areas for Further Study League Responsibilities: ^ Provide written review comments on draft Issue Paper work product. RegulaEory Issues ., Montana t_eague of Cities and Towns Preparation and distribution of written informational materials for League members. ^ Lega1 support for regulatory issues research under state and federal law. Deliverables: ^ Draft and final Issues Paper summarizing nutrient removal issues for the IVILCT, ]inuits of technology, appropriate efIluent discharger permit conditions, the review of the existing treatment process system and potential options for future modifications. Budget Resources: ^ Professional staff hours: 100 to 120 hours ^ Direct costs to conduct two project meetings, prepare materials, and produce draft and final technical memorandum ^ Tota1 budget: $20,900 Task Order No.1 Schedule: ^ Assumed notice to proceed: June 13, 2008 ^ Kickoff conference call and initiation: June 20, 2008 ^ Develop draft Issues Paper: September 26, 2008 ^ Final Issues Paper: November 14, 2008 Regulatory Issues 3 - Montana league of Cities and Towns Task Order No. 2 MLCT Conference Calls and Meetings 2.1 MLCT Conference Calls. Participate in periodic conference calls with the MLCT to discuss Water/Wastewater technical and regulatory issues. 2.2 MLCT Meetings. Attend meetings with the MLCT, including two quarterly meetings and the annual meeting. If appropriate, make presentations to the League an the Water Quality Issues Paper. League Responsibilities: ^ Schedule and coordinate conference calls and meetings. Deliverables: ^ Participation in four conference call/LiveMeetiungs with MLCT to discuss the development of Issues Paper and nutrient issues, treatment technologies, regulatory trends, discharge pernutting requirements, etc.. ^ Attend two MLCT Quarterly Meetings (July, October) and the League's Annual Conference. Budget Resources: Professional staff hours: 24 to 32 hours ^ Direct costs to attend three MLCT meetings ^ Total budget: $7,500 Task Order No. 2 Schedule: ^ Assumed notice to proceed: June 13, 2008 ^ Kickoff conference call and initiation: June 20, 2008 Aegvlatory Lssaes 4 Memorandum of Understanding between Montana League of Cities and Towns and Montana Municipal Insurance Authority Purpose -This Memorandum of Understanding has the following purposes: 1. To document the relationship between the Montana League of Cities and Towns (MLCT) and the Montana Municipal Insurance Authority (MMIA) for the future direction and mutual benefit of both organizations. 2. Ta improve communication and coordination between the MLCT and the MMIA. 3. To establish procedures for the Executive Committees of the MLCT and the MMIA to meet twice each yeaz to discuss the management and direction of the respective organizations. 4. To establish a procedure for MMIA to compensate MLCT for past, current and future services and benefits provided to the insurance programs. Agreements -This Memorandum of Understanding includes the following provisions: 1. The Executive Committees of the MLCT and the MMIA will meet twice each year. These meetings will be scheduled during the MLCT Annual Conference in October and in June neaz the end of each fiscal year. 2. Subjects for discussion at these meetings may include: • proposed legislation and lobbying strategy • budgets and financial reports • annual sponsorship and service fee from MMIA to MLCT • employee compensation and benefits ~ significant capital projects and expenditures • education and training programs • recruitment and hiring of replacements for the Executive Director of MLCT and the Chief Executive Officer of MMIA • other issues suggested by members of the Executive Committees. 3. The Chief Executive Officer of the MMIA will serve on the Legislation and Resolutions Committee of the MLCT and will be consulted an lobbying strategy, particulazly as it applies to insurance and related issues. . 4. The Executive Director of the MLCT will serve on the Legislation Committee of the MMIA. 5. The MMIA will pay a sponsorship and service fee to the MLCT of $98,000 for the fiscal. year, beginning July 1, 2008. This fee will be made in faun equal payments at the beginning of each fiscal quarter. It will be adjusted annually to account for inflation as indicated by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI[I). This Memorandum is subject to the approval of the Executive Committees or Baards of Directors of MLCT and MMIA. For Montana League of Cities and Towns r~- Bret Srnelser President ~ r Zl ~~~ Date Far Montana Municipal Insurance Authority Mar ene um Chairperson Date ~~' ~Og MEMORANDUM Ta: MMIA Member Entities with Population Under 20,000 From: Alan W. Hulse, CEO VIA Electronic Mail Date: July 3, 2008 Re: MMIA Board of Directors Vacancy Gary Marks, City Manager for the City of Whitefish and a Director of the MMIA, has informed the MMIA Board of Directors that he taken a new position and will be leaving the City of Whitefish. Mr. Marks tendered his resignation to the MMIA Board of Directors effective June 27, 2008. The term for this seat extends through the MMIA Annual meeting in October 2008. The Bylaws of the MMIA require that seated members of the Board appoint an individual to fill an unexpired term. Representatives of any MMIA member city or town with a population under 20,000 are eligible to hold this seat. The Board is seeking notice from individuals interested in this position. Notice must be received by the MMIA no later than Friday, August 1, 2008. Interested individuals will be considered to fill the vacant position at a special meeting of the Board which will be scheduled in early August. The Board meets eight to ten times per year to direct the operations of your risk retention organization. Meetings are generally held on Fridays in Helena. Persons interested in this position should be available to attend a retreat and meeting scheduled in Helena for August 20, 21, 22, 2008, a meeting scheduled in Missoula for October 8, 2008, and stand for election by the membership to a two year term beginning October 2008. The MMIA Board of Directors is a dynamic organization charged with directing the activities of a statewide interlocal agency that provides essential risk retention and management services to Montana cities and towns. Through regional and national training, Board members obtain a broad understanding of the many aspects of the liability, workers' wmpensation, property and employee benefits insurance industries. Board members participating in meetings or training are reimbursed for lodging and receive per diem and mileage payments, Individuals interested in being considered far this seat on the MMIA Board are asked to send notice indicating their interest and providing any pertinent personal information to: MMIA Board Appointment Attn: Alan W. Hulse, CEO PO Box 6669 Helena, MT 59604-6669 ahulsei~mmia.net \~fs1~DataWfficeFiles~ahulse~Board ar Directors~Board Appolntement Memo~Board interest m®mo1105Paper.doc