HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark Board Minutes 04.05.2018City of Laurel
Park Board Minutes
Thursday, April 5, 2018
In attendance were Park Board Members: Scot Stokes, Amy Pollock, Iry Wilke, Richard Herr,
Ken Gomer, Phyllis Bromgard; Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director; and Citizen, Curt Lord,
Laurel Rod & Gun Club; Park Board Member, LuAnne Engh joined via phone call.
1. Public Comment: None
2. Minutes: Reviewed and approved minutes from March meeting. Iry moved to accept, Ken
seconded, and they were unanimously approved.
3. Lease Negotiations: Horseshoe Club: Kurt said it will be on the City Council Agenda next
week. Mayor asked for Kurt to determine what HAS to be done vs. what needs to be done
eventually. Kurt said $170 will fix the immediate public safety issue. Kurt mentioned he
thought there was a going to be a discussion on the lease at next week's workshop.
Laurel Rod & Gun Club:
Our recommendations were not discussed at Council Meeting. Not sure why exactly. Scot was
going to find out. Iry said the Mayor had asked him if the chair or co-chair were there. He told
him no and wondered if that was the reason. Amy suggested that if that was the case, we would
need to elect a new co-chair since LuAnne is often out of town. She said she doesn't want to
attend meetings if the "don't count." We would like the Mayor to please clarify what the rules
are in those types of cases.
Kurt mentioned the MMIA (our insurance company) will be @ a meeting on the 4 t Tuesday in
May (22nd). Mayor wants meeting that day to go over what they will do. Curt Lords said in the
May 30, 2017, council minutes and Park Board minutes of April 6, 2017, it had already been
discussed and recommended and the LR&G Club are getting impatient. The sunset is 5/8
which is before the 5/22 meeting. He referenced several Montana State Codes (attached)
discussing getting rid of shooting ranges. He wondered if it could be put to a public vote. Some
thought it may be in Sam's (City Attorney's) hands right now.
Iry also mentioned that the FWP had an indefinite agreement with the City of Laurel for use of
the park and we may not be able to restrict the use of Riverside Park for the Hunter Safety field
course.
4. Sports Teams/Use of Parks: For further clarification, the Mayor asked that we consider
charging for the use of parks for sports teams practices. The Board agreed that they were
uncomfortable charging for practice time. If they weren't actually "reserving" the park and
excluding others from using it, then we don't want to charge. Iry stated he would rather see
kids running around, USING the parks than have kids on video games all the time. Iry
recommended that we do not charge for practice time. Ken seconded it. Motion passed
unanimously.
5. Swimming Pool: Sam is currently looking into using the interest money specifically from
the Billie Riddle Funds. Kurt said that as far as he could tell, there is no way to spend money
unless there is a budget amendment with a public hearing. He wondered if it would be worth it
to do that since it all takes time. If it was not going to happen until July, we might as well wait
for the July budget to come out if the Mayor wants to modify his budget for next year. Scot will
talk to the Mayor about it to get his perspective.
Iry said he could get concrete benches for $35o each or $500 with a concrete base. Scot
mentioned he would call the people who own the advertising benches we have all over town
and see what price they would give.
6. Update on Funds from Dept. of Justice: Kurt let us know that it is officially the "Public
Comment Period" if we wanted to send a letter as a Park Board with regards to the NRDP
funds. Letters are being accepted until April 30th. He suggested possibly asking them to
reconsider giving us back the $50,000 that was originally taken out since we were the #1
project. LuAnne agreed to draft a letter and email to members for approval.
Other: Ken presented a possibly form to be used when groups or clubs want to have a
temporary display. The form looked good, but the board wasn't sure it was necessary at this
time.
Phyllis mentioned Lions Club Cleanup Day is scheduled for April 14th @ South Pond.
Meeting was adjourned at 6:43 pm.
Respectfully submitted by
Amy Pollock, Park Board Member
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at
6:30 p.m. on May 3 )0, 204 7.
Emelic Eaton
Bruce McGee
Chuck Dickerson
Tom Nelson
OTHERS, PRESENT-,
Heidi Jensen, CAO
Sam Painter, Civil City Attorney
RM0 n
00-PrMLAMM�
There were no general items.
Doug PoehIs
Richard Herr
Scot Stokes
Bill Mountsier
Alan Hulse, CEO of MMIA
Brandon Duffey, Great West Engineering
Executive Review
e Alan Hulse, CEO, Montana Municipal Insurance Authority - Discussion regarding shooting in
Riverside Park
Alan Hulse, the Chief Executive Officer of the Montana Municipal, Interlocal Authority, spoke
regarding, risk management issues, potential exposures, and possible concerns with shooting, in
Riverside Park. He presented an overview of MMIA. and his role in this discussion. The 1VMA is a
risk retention pool for cities and towns in the state of Montana. MMIA is not an insurance company,
but it acts similar to an insurance company. MMIA is different in that it is owned and operated by its
members. It operates four separate pools, including the liability pool, the workers' compensation
pool, the property pool, and the health insurance pool. Each of the pools or programs is operated
scparaTely from each other and they zdo not co -mingle funds across lines of coverage. A city c=
participate in one orf the pools and mot the others, or they can pzrticipate in all four, pools.
Mr. Hulse spoke about liability exposure, particularly relative to indoor and outdoor shooting ranges.
He talked about coverage because it is not his role to tell the council what it can and cannot do. He is
not here to say that MMIA will write the city out if it continues with this practice. He spoke
regarding covered exposure, and non -covered exposures. MMIA does not specifically underwrite the
exposure,, but they rate risk by using the payroll, as ah;&sk. for and ricin Over 30, years of
existence, thgy found that the payroll is reflective of the exposure for a community., The larger the
community and the bigger the payroll, the more miles of streets, sewer, sidewalks, water, sYStetr4 etc.,
that need to be maintained. They establish base rates based on the payroll and then modify the rate'
based on the experience. He is here to talk about exposure. The city council's job is to look out for
&Uneil Worksliop Minutes of May 30, 2017
the city's interests and to make decisions. Part of that decision making process should factor in the
city's exposure to liability. Sometimes the best risk management decision is to accept the risk. Other
times the best decision, is to transfer the risk to someone else to insure it, or to try to manage the risk.
With regard to shooting ranges, three categories of risk exist. There is risk to injury, with either
somebody using the, range or somebody around the range. There is< risk to disease, which
predominantly rests with the indoor facility. There is risk to pollution exposure. Regarding the risk
to injury, MMIA defends between 100 and ISO lawsuits against its members at any given time. Ile
has seen claims argued relative to shooting ranges that shooting is an ultra -hazardous activity and
therefore it is strict liability, and if something happens, the city is at fault and has no defense. He does
not :now how viable ,that .theory is. Lawyers argue a:16t of diff-erent thearies w - hen ,they are trying to
prove their cases. MMIA handled a claim ten years ago involving a -shooting range in one of the
larger communities, The,range was not owoed by the city, but it was being usedby the city's police
department. An officer was on the range qualifying, went to draw his service revolver ftm the
bolster, and shot himself in the leg. He was acting in the course and scope of his job duties, so he had
no claim against his employer, the city, other than a worker's compensation claim. Because it was a
county shooting range and the city was using the range, he filed a tort claim against the county. The
argument was that shooting, is, an ultra -hazardous, actilvity an([ the range -owner has a responsibility to.
manage, supervise, and overseee, the range. They pile d to do that, that is, how he, got injured and:
therefore the county owed him money. INIM11A was, not involved inthat aspect o:f th e clahA, hut the
county settled the claim for $110,000 for his injuries. There is the risk of somebody being injured as
the owner of that range, Whether somebody else is managing it or overseeing it does not make the
risk go away for the city as the owner of the range.
Alan stated that the indoor range is the more concerning exposure to him as,a risk manager. There is
lead contamination in the building and there is an inadequate, ventilation system, That is going to
continue to get worse arid. is a real exposure to anybody that is in the -building. die .does not know
what to do about that short of totally reclaiming the building and putting in some type of ventilation
system to continue to use it. He has concerns about continuing to allow use of that facility until
something is done.
Alan spoke; regarding, the last exposure of over -411 general pollution- With shooting, especially with
the outdoor range, shooting is, done in a concentrated area. 'Ilie shots fall down to the giound, and,
build up over time, which ir, a potential lord ter n -s expostwe. That exists whether the city does,
anything or not, and it will, grow over time. From a coverage standpoint, NIMIA has no exclusions in
the memorandum for shooting activities. If the city had a claim involving somebody being injured as
a result of a shooting activity, there would be no exclusion and MMIA would provide coverage for the
claim. Depending on the circumstances, they would either defend or try to settle the claim, and that
would he reflected in the city's loss hjstory. MMIA would not rate the city higher far- that or charge
more for having that exposure, but it will be reflected in the city's experience modification. MTvffA
has a 5 -year lookback for claims, which would drive future premiums to on that experience.
The potential exposure for disease from using a building that is contaminated with lead, or the
pollution exposure to the land itself may or may not be covered. MMIA has an absolute pollution
exclusion in its Memorandum of Liability Coverage. It basically says they will not cover any liability
2
COunc'l Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
arising Out of pollution. If somebody who was exposed to lead in a contaminated polluted building
filed a claim as a result of the exposure, it may trigger the exclusion. It would depend on what else
was plod. If somebody filed so m-, tYpe o -f a claim for pollution to land, he does not now how that
would Conte about. It would not Lv cOvered by MIMIA's tea enioranduai
Alan spoke regarding how to manage the exposure, and if the exposure could be managed by leasing.
donating or selling the property to someone else. He thinks to some
range could be managed if the city did not Own the property. However,
the injury exposure on the
owever, the range sits in a city park
area. If somebody happens to be injured, that could rest: at the cilfy's doorstep as the park owner and
not talking precautions to keep the public in general Out of �,harm's way. Regarding the pollution
exposures, he does not know how to transfer that exposure, as thoseare lcgacY exposures that the city
owns.
Alan concluded his informational overview and mentioned that he has addressed the council
regarding this property in the past. He is not anti -shooting range, as Montana is a state in which
people hunt. Shooting ranges are needed, but there is exposure and risk. The council needs to
consider these issues when making decisions regarding the shooting range.
Mayor Mace thanked Mr. Hulse and asked if there were any, questions,
Tom did not know why the council was having this discussion. He does not know about the indoor
shooting range and whether or not there is active shooting there because of the flooding and if it is
occupied or not. He knows that outdoor shooting tern -Ls in May 2018 in the lease.
Mayor Mace questioned what car) be done as far as the indoor shootingrange.
Alan understands that ..-that indoor range has been tested and t1le tests i,nd i cated that there is lead
contamination. it is also his understanding that that indoor range does not have an adequate
ventilation system for an indoor firing range. If asked for a recommendation, he would not allow the
public to access the indoor shooting range until the city has dealt with the current conditions. The
claim in the large community is what is driving his experience with this issue. The community has a
controlled indoor range for limited use for the police department only. They have a ventilation
system that they have not adequately and properly maintained'managed, and cleaned and there is a
high lead content in that range. Right now, that range has b=shut down and"that, city is looking for
solutions. From his perspective, if there is a known contaminated- site without- adequate ventilation,
he would be remiss to say the city should do anything other than shut it down. He knows that is easy
to say and it may create more difficulties, but it is a real risk.
Tom had a COPY Of the Laurel Rod and Gun Club's lease, but did not have the Laurel Rine Club's
lease. He questioned if the Rifle Club had a current lease and,the expirat,
,on date.
Heidi thought the lease expired and bad not been renewed since the flooding ,event ,of 20,11,because
the building is in disrepair.
Tom stated that, if there is no lease, then there is no activity.
R]
76-9-103. Planning -- effcct 01) S11001-ilIg raliges, MCA
MCA Contents / TITLE 76 / CHAPTER / Part / 7O-S'1O3Planning —eff.'
TITLE 78.LAND RESOURCES AND USE
CHAPTER [\ SHOOTING RANGES
Part 1. Protection of Shooting Range Location and Investments
Planning -- Effect On Shooting Ranges
76-9-103. Planning _ effect moshooting ranges. The laws ofthis state concerning plann' � or
growth policies, as defined may /n �G-1'1�3. �y ncdbeoons�uedtoauthohzeon ordinance, resolution,
or rule that would:
(1) prevent the operation ofanexisting shooting range asGnonconforming use;
(2) prohibit the establishment of new shooting ranges, but the ordinance, resolution mn�m�
,egu�t8the coomdrucdunofahopUmgranges hnspeo�edzonee�ur '
.
CB prevent the erection or construction of safety improvements on existing shooting ranges.
lofl
76-9-105. Closul•e of slloolin; ranges -- limitations -- relocation cast... http://Ieg.mt.iyov/bills/mea/title 0760/chapter 0090 `part ot) I0 ,Wcii...
MCA Contents / TITLE 76 / CHAPTER 9 / Part 9 / 76-9-105 Closure of sh...
TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE
CHAPTER 9. SHOOTING RANGES
Fart 1. Protection of Shooting Range Location and Investments
Closure %0f i -- Limitations --
Relocation do o t
76-9-105. Closure of shooting ranges -- limitations -- relocation cost, (1) Except as provided
in subsection (2), an established shooting range may not be prevented from operation by a state
agency, unit of local government, or court unless the range presents a clear and provable safety
hazard to the adjacent population.
(2) If a pressing public need exists because of incompatibility with nearby population or land use,
an established shooting range may be relocated by an agency of state government, unit of local
government, or court, but only if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) pressing public need is documented through hearings, testimony, and a clear and precise
statement of need by the agency, unit of local government, or court involved;
(b) the agency or unit of local government obtaining the closure pays the appraised cost of the
land together with improvements to the operators of the shooting range. In return the shooting range
operators shall relinquish their interest in the property to the agency or unit of local government
obtaining the closure.
(3) If a shooting range presents a clear and provable safety hazard to adjacent population, the
range may be suspended from operation if:
(a) reasonable notice and opportunity to respond are afforded the range operators; and
(b) reasonable opportunity is afforded the range operators to correct any safety defects.
History: En. Sec. 5, Ch. 415, L. 9991.
Created by W',S*,
1 or I
12/11/2017, 4:29 P vI
76-9-104. Zollillg - efTect oil shooting ranges, MCA
http:/,Icg.lnt.govfbillymc,a/title-.07(1()/cliApter-0090/part-.,00 I 0/secii
MCA Contents / TITLE 76 1 CHAPTER 9 / Part I / 76-9-104 Zoning -- effe...
TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE
CHAPTER 9. SHOOTING RANGES
Part 1. Protection of Shooting Range Location and Investments
Zoning -- Effekc-t %(-J1n Shooting Ranges
76-9-104. Zoning -- effect on shooting ranges. A planning district growth policy,
recommendation, resolution, rule, or zoning designation may not:
(1) prevent the operation of an existing shooting range as a nonconforming use;
(2) prohibit the establishment of new shooting ranges, but it may regulate the construction of
shooting ranges to specified zones; or
(3) prevent the erection or construction of safety improvements on existing shooting ranges.
History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 415, L. 19911; amd. Sec. 33, Ch. 582, L. 1999.
Created by
Io 1
12/11/2017, 4:28 PM
7b-9-101. Policy, MCA
I'ttP:,'./feg.mt.L-I,Ov,lbilts/t-nca/title-07(iO,/cb,tpter--0090`/[)art-00 I 0"Secti...
MCA Contents I TITLE 76 / CHAPTER 9 / Part 1 1 76-9-101 Policy
TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE
CHAPTER 9. SHOOTING RANGES
Part 1. Protection of Shooting Range Location and Investments
ME"
76-9-101. Policy. It is the policy of the state of Montana to provide for the health, safety, and
welfare Of the citizens of the state by promoting the safety and enjoyment of the shooting sports
among the citizens of the state and by protecting the locations of and investment in shooting ranges
for shotgun, archery, rifle, and pistol shooting.
History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 415, L. 1991.
Created by 1-111/,-s
121t 1/20171 4:27 I'M
76-9L02.Prohibitions, MCA
MCA Contents / TITLE 76 / CHAPTER / Part / 76-9-102 Prohibitions
TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE
CHAPTER 9. SHOOTING RANGES
Part 1. Protection of Shooting Range Location and Investments
76-9-102. Prohibitions. (1) Standards adopted by o state agency or unit of local government to
limit levels ofnoise that may occur iothe outdoor atmosphere may not apply toshooting ranges.
(2) Standards adopted by 3 state agency or unit of local government promulgated pursuant to
Title 75 and concerning pollution by lead, copper, orbrass may not limit orprohibit the operation ofo
shooting range because of lead, copper, or brass deposition resulting from shooting activities.
Created by
iufl
IO/a�ti.'
MINUTES
1
I k. 1 '
! : ,
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at
6:30 p.m. on May 30, 2017.
: of ,
_ Emelie Eaton
x Bruce McGee
x Chuck Dickerson
x Tom Nelson
Heidi Jensen, CAO
Sam Painter, Civil City Attorney
Public Input
There was no public input.
General items
There were no general items.
_ Doug Poehls
x Richard Herr
Scot Stokes
Bill Mountsier
Alan Hulse, CEO of MMIA
Brandon Duffey, Great West Engineering
Executive Review
e Alan Hulse, CEO, Montana Municipal Insurance Authority - Discussion regarding shooting in
Riverside Park
Alan Hulse, the Chief Executive Officer of the Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority, spoke
regarding risk management issues, potential exposures, and possible concerns with shooting in
Riverside Park. He presented an overview of MMIA and his role in this discussion. The MMIA is a
risk retention pool for cities and towns in the state of Montana. MMIA is not an insurance company,
but it acts similar to an insurance company. MMIA is different in that it is owned and operated by its
members. It operates four separate pools, including the liability pool, the workers' compensation
pool, the property pool, and the health insurance pool. Each of the pools or programs is operated
separately from each other and they do not co -mingle funds across lines of coverage. A city can
participate in one of the pools and not the others, or they can participate in all four pools.
Mr. Hulse spoke about liability exposure, particularly relative to indoor and outdoor shooting ranges.
He talked about coverage because it is not his role to tell the council what it can and cannot do. He is
not here to say that MMIA will write the city out if it continues with this practice. He spoke
regarding covered exposures and non -covered exposures. MMIA does not specifically underwrite the
exposure, but they rate risk by using the payroll as a basis for underwriting. Over 30 years of
existence, they found that the payroll is reflective of the exposure for a community. The larger the
community and the bigger the payroll, the more miles of streets, sewer, sidewalks, water system, etc.,
that need to be maintained. They establish base rates based on the payroll and then modify the rate
based on the experience. He is here to talk about exposure. The city council's job is to look out for
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
the city's interests and to make decisions. Fart of that decision making process should factor in the
city's exposure to liability. Sometimes the best risk management decision is to accept the risk. Other
times the best decision is to transfer the risk to someone else to insure it, or to try to manage the risk.
With regard to shooting ranges, three categories of risk exist. There is risk to injury, with either
somebody using the range or somebody around the range. There is risk to disease, which
predominantly rests with the indoor facility. There is risk to pollution exposure. Regarding the risk
to injury, MMIA defends between 100 and 150 lawsuits against its members at any given time. He
has seen claims argued relative to shooting ranges that shooting is an ultra -hazardous activity and
therefore it is strict liability, and if something happens, the city is at fault and has no defense. He does
not know how viable that theory is. Lawyers argue a lot of different theories when they are trying to
prove their cases. MMIA handled a claim ten years ago involving a shooting range in one of the
larger communities. The range was not owned by the city, but it was being used by the city's police
department. An officer was on the range qualifying, went to draw his service revolver from the
holster, and shot himself in the leg. He was acting in the course and scope of his job duties, so he had
no claim against his employer, the city, other than a worker's compensation claim Because it was a
county shooting range and the city was using the range, he filed a tort claim against the county. The
argument was that shooting is an ultra -hazardous activity and the range owner has a responsibility to
manage, supervise, and oversee the range. They failed to do that, that is how he got injured, and
therefore the county owed him money. MMIA was not involved in that aspect of the claim, but the
county settled the claim for $110,000 for his injuries. There is the risk of somebody being injured as
the owner of that range. Whether somebody else is managing it or overseeing it does not make the
risk go away for the city as the owner of the range.
Alan stated that the indoor range is the more concerning exposure to him as a risk manager. There is
lead contamination in the building and there is an inadequate ventilation system. That is going to
continue to get worse and is a real exposure to anybody that is in the building. He does not know
what to do about that short of totally reclaiming the building and putting in some type of ventilation
system to continue to use it. He has concerns abut continuing to allow use of that facility until
something is done.
Alan spoke regarding the last exposure of overall general pollution. With shooting, especially with
the outdoor range, shooting is done in a concentrated area. The shots fall down to the ground and
build up over time, which is a potential long-term exposure. That exists whether the city does
anything or not, and it will grow over time. From a coverage standpoint, MMIA has no exclusions in
the memorandum for shooting activities. If the city had a claim involving somebody being injured as
a result of a shooting activity, there would be no exclusion and MMIA would provide coverage for the
claim. Depending on the circumstances, they would either defend or try to settle the claim, and that
would be reflected in the city's loss history. MMIA would not rate the city higher for that or charge
more for having that exposure, but it will be reflected in the city's experience modification. MMIA
has a 5 -year lookback for claims, which would drive future premiums based on that experience.
The potential exposure for disease from using a building that is contaminated with lead, or the
pollution exposure to the land itself may or may not be covered. MMIA has an absolute pollution
exclusion in its Memorandum of Liability Coverage. It basically says they will not cover any liability
FA
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
arising out of pollution. If somebody who was exposed to lead in a contaminated polluted building
filed a claim as a result of the exposure, it may trigger the exclusion. It would depend on what else
was pled. If somebody filed some type of a claim for pollution to land, he does not know how that
would come about. It would not be covered by MMIA's memorandum.
Alan spoke regarding how to manage the exposure, and if the exposure could be managed by leasing,
donating or selling the property to someone else. He thinks to some extent the injury exposure on the
range could be managed if the city did not own the property. However, the range sits in a city park
area. If somebody happens to be injured, that could rest at the city's doorstep as the park owner and
not taking precautions to keep the public in general out of harm's way. Regarding the pollution
exposures, he does not know how to transfer that exposure, as those are legacy exposures that the city
owns.
Alan concluded his informational overview and mentioned that he has addressed the council
regarding this property in the past. He is not anti -shooting range, as Montana is a state in which
people hunt. Shooting ranges are needed, but there is exposure and risk. The council needs to
consider these issues when making decisions regarding the shooting range.
Mayor Mace thanked Mr. Hulse and asked if there were any questions.
Tom did not know why the council was having this discussion. He does not know about the indoor
shooting range and whether or not there is active shooting there because of the flooding and if it is
occupied or not. He knows that outdoor shooting terms in May 2018 in the lease.
Mayor Mace questioned what can be done as far as the indoor shooting range.
Alan understands that that indoor range has been tested and the tests indicated that there is lead
contamination. It is also his understanding that that indoor range does not have an adequate
ventilation system for an indoor firing range. If asked for a recommendation, he would not allow the
public to access the indoor shooting range until the city has dealt with the current conditions. The
claim in the large community is what is driving his experience with this issue. The community has a
controlled indoor range for limited use for the police department only. They have a ventilation
system that they have not adequately and properly maintained, managed, and cleaned and there is a
high lead content in that range. Right now, that range has been shut down and that city is looking for
solutions. From his perspective, if there is a known contaminated site without adequate ventilation,
he would be remiss to say the city should do anything other than shut it down. He knows that is easy
to say and it may create more difficulties, but it is a real risk.
Tom had a copy of the Laurel Rod and Gun CIub's lease, but did not have the Laurel Rifle Club's
lease. He questioned if the Rifle Club had a current lease and the expiration date.
Heidi thought the lease expired and had not been renewed since the flooding event of 2011 because
the building is in disrepair.
Tom stated that, if there is no lease, then there is no activity.
3
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
Heidi stated that the club still uses the building. The city would need to block the door in order to
stop use of the building.
Torn thought the council had previously discussed "no lease, no activity."
Bruce stated that the council has discussed that. He thinks the council has been told at different times
that the building was not in use, but the citizens have never respected that, and it has remained in use.
Heidi explained that the city has asked it to not be in use, but unless staff is directed to block the door,
staff has no authority to do that. Unless directed to lock/barricade that door closed, staff cannot act on
it.
Bruce questioned whether that directive needed to come from the council or if it could be made on an
administrative level.
Mayor Mace stated that this should be discussed at the next council workshop.
Tom asked for the city attorney's thoughts on this matter. He asked why the city is having a problem
with a building that is being used that should not be used. There is one year left for shooting in the
lease. He questioned if the council should consider a resolution to terminate the lease early.
Sam stated that Tom asked a multiple level question. There have been ongoing discussions about
shooting down at the park, and the fact that it is in a city park has been the problem. Everybody has
recognized that. This council, or the former council, made a decision to sunset shooting in the park.
The intervening flood created yet another urgency with the water that flooded and contaminated the
building, making the bathrooms inoperable. When it was dried out, the club went in and there was
more shooting. The city did some tests and the tests came back positive for lead contamination.
During this time period, the club has attempted to come up with an idea as to how they can take over
the shooting operation down there all together. Sam attended a Park Board meeting where there was
discussion about giving or leasing the buildings in the park to the club. Sam's response was that, yes,
if the city would de -annex the property and convey it all to this club, it would not be the city's
property anymore. That is the only way to minimize the personal injury -type risk. This will not get
rid of the pollution problem. That is the city's problem and the city cannot get rid of it. The problem
remains that they are still shooting in the park and the council wants to know what to do. Studies
show that there is lead poisoning. The city owns the building, which causes liability concerns if
people are allowed to shoot in it. The insurer has pointed out the fact that there is exposure, and that
exposure may not be covered. The ramifications are that, if a substantial judgement is obtained
against the city, the city pays it. The citizens all pay it, as a levy comes about, and the funds are paid
for the damage. The council, as the managers of the city, has to realize that there is a potential
liability there and the council needs to determine whether or not to continue with the risk.
Tom stated that, from Sam's answer and Alan's earlier statement, he would infer that perhaps the best
remedy is to have the building go away, as in demolished/burnt/hauled off in a manner according with
the contaminant it has.
In
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
Sam stated that properly disposing of the property would certainly resolve the problem.
Tom stated that it is probably not cheap, but it is probably the least expensive option.
Sam stated that, if the club came in with a substantial chunk of money and bought the park from the
city, he would have a hard time saying that does not resolve the injury case or issues, but only if the
council de -annexed the property so it was not part of the city anymore. The biggest problem is that it
is located on city property. Regardless of what happens down there, the city will always be a
defendant.
Alan agreed that the city would be the primary target of a complaint.
Sam stated it is always presumed that the cities have unlimited resources, even when they do not. He
agreed that the city has some potential uncovered liability.
Alan stated that it is a pollution exposure. A recent claim in another community was ultimately
resolved for $7.5 million. MMIA paid a portion of it, but a big portion of the claim fell to the city.
Alan stated that pollution type claims get very expensive. In addition to the $7.5 million, there was
$3 to $3.5 million in defense costs, which did not even get to depositions. It was just the initial
engineering work behind the scenes.
Alan stated that the exposure can be managed, but from a decision standpoint, the exposure exists
today as it exists, but it gets worse as time goes on. The priority from his perspective is a known
contamination site. From a public safety standpoint, it is probably incumbent upon the city to take
some action to eliminate the public from access to that contamination site.
Mayor Mace thanked Mr. Hulse for his presentation.
• Resolution - Engagement Letter with Dorsey & Whitney
Heidi discussed a resolution to approve an engagement letter with Dorsey & Whitney. The
engagement letter was already signed by Heidi in April and authorizes Dorsey & Whitney to prepare
paperwork to create the Special Improvement District No. 118 on South Washington Avenue and
Southeast 41' Street.
e Resolution -Create Special Improvement District No. 118
Heidi introduced the resolution to create Special Improvement District No. 118, which is the
improvement district on South Washington Avenue and Southeast 4h Street. A portion of this project
will be paid with TIF District funds, and the owners will also pay a portion. There have been no
objections from the property owners on South Washington Avenue at this time.
r Resolution - Award the bid for the South Washington Avenue and SE 4a' Street Project
Heidi explained that this resolution awards the bid for Special Improvement District No. 118. The
project on Southeast 4' Street is located by the 90 -degree corner near Walmart. The road will be
widened so the whole road will be the same width all the way around the corner. Schedule I is
5
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
$124,066.00 for the creation of the SID, and Schedules 2 and 3 are $101,710 and $34,405
respectively. No street maintenance dollars will contribute to this project as it will be paid with TIFD
dollars and payments from the property owners. Once the project is completed, Southeast 4'' Street
will be painted, as the paint has warn off from last summer and the turn lane cannot be seen.
Chuck asked if Schedules 2 and 3 would be automatically awarded to CMG upon completion or if it
would go out for a re -bid.
Heidi confirmed that CMG was the lowest bidder on all three schedules, and all schedules were
advertised as a package.
Sam clarified that Schedules 2 and 3 are contingent upon approval and creation of the SID, but
Schedule 1 would proceed with or without approval of the SID.
Tom asked if all three schedules are being paid with TIFD funds.
Heidi said yes.
Tom asked if there were any sidewalks or crossings included in the project.
Heidi explained that sidewalks and crossings are included in this project. Three properties on the east
side of South Washington Avenue would add sidewalks. A sidewalk currently goes around the
outside of the corner at Southeast 41 Street and Bernhardt Road, and all pedestrian traffic will be
required to take this route. Adding sidewalk along the inside of the corner is cost -prohibitive because
it would require covering two ditches. There will be two lighted crossings added to Southeast 4'}'
Street and one standard crossing added to South Washington Avenue.
Tom asked if this would allow for two semi -trucks to navigate the corner at the same time in their
own lanes.
Heidi deferred to Brandon Duffey of Great West Engineering.
Brandon Duffey handed out some plans for the Special Improvement District. The plans show the
dimensions of the street, and Brandon described simulations of semi -truck traffic in each lane. A
semi -truck would cross into the center turn lane, but it would not encroach on the other lane of traffic.
Semi -trucks would still cross the center turn lane when turning onto Bernhardt Road, but there is no
way to change that without extremely modifying that corner. The intent of this project was to widen
out to the north where there is room and to keep the southbound traffic in its own lane.
a Resolution - Zoning variance from LMC 17.20.010 List of Uses in Highway Commercial
Zoning for medical marijuana dispensary or dispensary. (PH - June 6, 2017)
Heidi spoke regarding the resolution for a zoning variance requested for a medical marijuana
dispensary or dispensary. The public hearing will be next week, June 6, 2017. Heidi briefly
summarized the variance, saying it was recommended unanimously to be approved by the City -
County Planning Board [Note: Per the Planning Board minutes of May 4, the vote was 5-2]. She
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
asked the applicant's representative, Jason Smith, to come forward
Jason introduced himself as the co-owner of Montana Advanced Caregivers in Billings, Montana. He
is asking for a 1500 square -foot variance to help serve the patients in this area. It would not be for
producing or growing any sort of medication or marijuana, it would just be a storefront. All
medications would be dispensed in sealed packages with warning labels. They are the first dispensary
in the state to do that. Jason asked if there were any questions.
Richard asked where their business is located in Billings.
Jason described the location, which is just off Interstate 90 near the South Billings Boulevard exit.
Richard remembered that the City -County Planning Board recommended allowing medical marijuana
only in Light Industrial zones back in 2011.
Jason acknowledged that, and he listed property owners he believed to currently occupy Light
Industrial zones as Montana Rail Link, Fiberglass Structures, and the refineries. Because these
business are federally regulated, Jason said, they cannot allow a dispensary on their property. He
believed that the location listed in the variance was zoned as Light Industrial in 2011 when they made
that recommendation.
Richard asked about the number of patients they have in Laurel.
Jason said there are currently about 20 patients from Laurel, but a Laurel location would be closer to
patients from the surrounding area including Red Lodge, Absarokee and others.
Richard asked if 20 patients was enough to make this a viable business, considering it is only ten
more miles to their Billings location.
Mayor Mace pointed out this was not related to the variance and stopped the discussion.
Tom asked regarding the current zoning for the property at 204 South Washington Avenue.
Heidi responded that it is zoned Highway Commercial.
Tom made a statement about the council considering rezoning rather than granting variances to avoid
losing the continuity that was in the original zoning plan.
Heidi reminded the council that they have to take the application as it stands.
Chuck thinks variances are an avenue for other businesses to come into the city, and he does not
believe the city will lose control of the type of businesses that open. He wants to be welcoming to
new things coming into the city.
Heidi pointed out that there is criteria in which a variance can be allowed or should be permitted.
7
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
These were fisted on the front page of the resolution and were answered by the applicant, as well as
discussed by the Planning Board.
Chuck acknowledged that there may be another location ten miles away, but the council should want
to be user-friendly to the citizens of Laurel. There may be more medical situations in Laurel that the
council is not familiar with, and this could open up a new avenue for them.
Jason added that they offer a product called Charlotte's Web at their facility. It is a product made
strictly from hemp that is not psychoactive. It is not marijuana. It is made in Colorado, and it can be
used to treat children with seizures. Jason stated that they have a lot of patients that do not have
medical marijuana cards, that have nothing to do with marijuana, but they have to access their other
products.
® Resolution -Contract with Nixle for Reverse 911 services
Heidi discussed the resolution for a contract with Nixle for Reverse 911 services. The city currently
contracts with a company calf CodeRED for Reverse 911. It has become too cumbersome to
operate and the yearly fee has continued to go up. The Police Chief evaluated options using test runs
with the dispatchers, and he would like to move the city's Reverse 911 services to Nixle. It works
well with the city's Zuercher software.
Heidi stated that Reverse 911 is a wonderful public service that the city can use for all sorts of
disasters, emergencies, fires, etc. The city used the Reverse 911 service recently when there was an
active shooting situation in the city about a month ago. It asked all residents in the neighborhood to
stay inside and helped ensure that everyone stayed safe in that situation.
Tom asked where that call went.
Heidi said the active shooting situation was on Roundhouse Drive and the Reverse 911 called the
neighbors and asked them to stay inside while the police were containing the situation.
e Council Issues:
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
Heidi reported that the intake is online, and the city is currently using water from the new intake down
at the treatment plant building. She went on a walkthrough with the construction company and then
met with the property owner, Mr. Harkins. The city wants to continue to be a good neighbor, and
would like to thank Mr. Harkins for being a good neighbor to the city. Heidi talked to Public Works
Director, Kurt Markegard, and the punch list is not very long. The contractor has done a really good
job with restoration, and the city should be closing this project out soon.
Mayor Mace recalled that the Public Works Director took the council to see the initial damage, and
said they should see it again as the restoration has gone very well. Mayor Mace asked if there were
any questions from the council.
Chuck asked if it would be possible to set something up prior to the next Council Workshop meeting
93
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
to see the restoration site.
Mayor Mace said that information would be sent to the council members
Other items
There were none.
Review of draft council agenda for June 6 2017
Public Hearing:
o Zoning variance from LMC 17.20.010 List of Uses in Highway Commercial Zoning
for medical marijuana dispensary or dispensary
There was no discussion.
Attendance at the June 6 2017 council meeting
All council members present will attend.
Announcements
Chuck announced there would be no Park Board meeting June 1 sr
Tom announced that there will be a Cemetery Commission meeting on June 13`h. The Cemetery
Commission created brochures to help citizens locate gravesites. They are now available at the
cemetery in a water resistant box or at the Water Office in City Hall.
Tom presented a retirement card and gift to Cindy Allen, Council Secretary, in appreciation of her
hard work over the years. He acknowledged it is not easy, and sincerely thanked her on behalf of the
council.
Mayor Mace verified that Cindy Allen served as Council Secretary for 14 years, and stated, "That's a
lot of taking care of mayors and councilmen."
Chuck requested a discussion at the next workshop about combining the Cemetery Commission and
the Park Board. Sam said he could put together a draft ordinance for discussion.
Tom requested that council members discuss the liabilities in Riverside Park and work toward a
solution at the June 13`h council workshop.
Mayor Mace said it will be added to council issues with the flooding.
Chuck suggested moving the discussion about combining the Park Board and the Cemetery
Commission to the June 27`x' Council Workshop.
Heidi agreed, citing that the Clerk/Treasurer is presenting her first management budget at the June
13d' council workshop.
The council workshop adjourned at 7:31 p.m
0
Council Workshop Minutes of May 30, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Kelsey
Administrative Assistant
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the
listed workshop agenda items.
10