Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 05.29.2018MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP MAY 29, 2018 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Tom Nelson at 6:30 p.m. on May 29, 2018. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: _x Emelie Eaton _x Heidi Sparks x Bruce McGee x Richard Herr x Scot Stokes x Iry Wilke x Richard Klose x Bill Mountsier OTHERS PRESENT: Sam Painter, City Attorney Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director Forrest Sanderson, Interim Planner Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering Public Input Dave Waggoner, 419 Maple Avenue, questioned where the funds CHS had donated for the retaining wall had gone. Mayor Nelson responded that the project is included in the SED Basin project to be presented later in the meeting and that those funds have been held for the purpose of building that wall. General Items • Re -appointment of Wallace Hall to Cemetery Commission for a two-year term ending June 30, 2020. Wallace Hall is currently serving on the Cemetery Commission and would like to be re -appointed for another term. The list of vacancies will be brought to the next Council Workshop. Executive Review • Resolution— A resolution to adopt an official Schedule of Fees and Charges for the City of Laurel, repealing all previous resolutions that set fees or charges that conflict with the schedule attached hereto upon its effective date. (PH 6.5.2018) The public hearing is scheduled for the June 5`" City Council meeting. Previously Council received the marked -up draft of the Schedule of Fees and Charges, in tonight's packet is the final draft of the Schedule of Fees and Charges. • Resolution — A resolution approving an agreement between the City of Laurel and Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch, relating to fire protection. (Fiscal Year 2018-2019) There was a question regarding the math done on the worksheet. Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 It was explained what each section of the worksheet meant and how the new total was figured. There were no further questions. • Resolution — A resolution approving an agreement between the City of Laurel and Fire District No. 8, relating to fire protection. (Fiscal Years 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020-2021) The City Attorney noticed a typo in the resolution; it will be corrected prior to next week's meeting. This contract shows a three percent increase each year. There were no further questions. • Resolution — A resolution accepting the Bid from COP Construction, LLC and authorizing the Mayor to sign all related contract documents for the project know as Phase 3 WTP SED Basin Removal and Replacement Project. Mayor Nelson requested Chad Hanson with Great West Engineering and Kurt Markegard; Public Works Director explain the project. Recently the City held a bid opening for this project. The base bid from COP Construction came in significantly under Great West's estimate, which leaves room for the City to choose to add additive altemate(s). The order of priority for the additive alternates is as follows: • Additive Alternate #3: Backwash Storage Tank • Additive Alternate #2: Demolish Existing Sed. Basin • Additive Alternate #1: Slush Ice Basin Due to the City's reserve amount, the loan amount was reduced to $4.577 million as of this morning, May 29, 2018. The $4.577 million figure does include the contingency budget; if the City does not need to use its contingency budget, then the loan amount will be reduced. It was questioned if the City can choose which contractor to use for each additive alternate. No, the City chooses to award the base bid to one contractor. It can then choose to add the additive alternates to the project. It was questioned if the total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $9 million. Yes, the City has paid most of the difference between the estimated construction costs and the total cost of the project. The Mayor clarified that he is comfortable with this budget. The loan will be repaid from the enterprise fund and will not impact the General Fund. It was questioned if the total cost of this project minus the $250,000 for Cherry Hills Booster Station will be $9.919 million. Yes, and that does include the $750,000 for contingency they hope not to need and the $7.475 million for construction of the SED basins. The base bid came in approximately $800,000 under the estimate. 2 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 It was questioned why the resolution was prepared without everything filled in. It was clarified that the Council would vote on the base bid, and subsequent additive alternatives and the totals after those votes would be entered into the Resolution. It was questioned if Council wanted the City to try and get a better price on two out of the three additive alternatives could they vote no and ask for those projects to be rebid. Those additive alternatives would not be done at this time. They would need to be re -engineered and go back out for bid at a later date. This would, in turn, cost the City more money because of the fees associated with the re -bid process. The likelihood is that those projects would come in higher as construction costs do increase each year. Also, by adding a project to the base bid, the City will not need to pay fees such as mobilization as the contractor is already doing work in the area. COP Construction, even with all the additive alternatives added to the base bid, were still the lowest bid. It was stated that the SED Basin Project was piggybacked onto the Water Intake Project. It was questioned why the Cherry Hills Booster Station was piggybacked onto this project. The Cherry Hills Booster Station is the final stage of this project. The project was brought into the scope to utilize the engineering resources. The Cherry Hills Booster Station is a stand-alone project; it is, however, a health and safety issue that does need to be resolved. For this reason, it did help with the grant applications. The Cherry Hills Booster Station is budgeted in the actual budget and is not part of the loan. Great West Engineering has been in contact with the grant agencies, and the grant agencies do want this to be part of the project. It was questioned if the Council could choose not to do the slush ice basin, but also stated that if the Council chooses to include it in this project, it will put the issue to rest. Out of all the additive alternatives the slush ice basin is the easiest to add at a later date. All the piping will be in place during the construction of the SED Basin. It can be connected at a later date and does sit to the side of the actual basin. By adding the slush ice basin, it does put the City over the engineer construction cost estimate, and the additional funds would be taken from the contingency budget. This winter the slush ice basin would not have been needed for slush removal as the City did not have a ton of slush to deal with. There are a few reasons for this. The first being the new intake reduces the amount of slush brought into the plant. The second being that the future building will be heated and should reduce the amount of slush the plant deals with. However, the City did have issues with slush when using the 2003 intake. In the event, the 2003 intake would be used the slush could become an issue. Currently, the City uses a small excavator to remove the slush as the SED basins are outdoors. Once the new SED basin is built, this process will not work as there is no the infrastructure to get the equipment indoors. The slush ice basins can also be used to remove sand and grit from the water when the water has high turbidities. This, in turn, helps reduce the particulates that will enter the pumps and could increase the life of the pumps significantly. It was questioned if this was the process that Bozeman uses at their Water Treatment Facility. Bozeman utilizes a grit removal system that uses centrifuges to reduce the grit in the water. The slush ice basin does both slush and grit removal. While looking to reduce the cost of the SED Basin Project, the slush ice basin was identified as an item that could be done as a stand-alone project at a later date. Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 Instead of cutting the project all together it was brought forward in this format for Council to snake the final decision. However, it would cost the City money to go out for the rebid. The number one priority is the Backwash Storage Tank as it has holes in the top and does leak when filled. The Public Works Director spoke with CHS regarding the ability to fix the tank. It was built 62 years ago and would cost far more to fix than just replace. It would be replaced with a glass lined fused tank. However, the tank is located off to the side and could be replaced at a different time. The City is able to do all of the additive alternatives to this project without a water rate increase. The Cherry Hills Booster Station was part of the TSEP grant as there is the low water pressure in that area. The equipment was installed and donated by the developer and will be moved to a new location to help the Cherry Hills Subdivision and the Elena Subdivision with their water pressure needs. The work on this project has been limited due to the dependence on the land acquisition. Once the land is purchased the design of the Booster Station can resume. It will be a separate bid and design item. It was questioned if the slush ice basin is duplicated because the new intake is heated and the new basin is indoors. The slush ice basin has more uses than just to remove slush from the SED Basins. It can also be used to remove grit from the water to extend the life of the pumps. Mayor Nelson asked Chad if the Council did not approve the additive alternate for the slush ice basin would Great West lose money, and if they approved it would Great West gain money. What would be the professional suggestion to Council on if they should approve these additive alternate or should they leave it out? Chad responded that Great West would not lose or gain money based off of what the Council decides to do. He also responded that he never wants to presume to make any monetary decisions on the City's behalf. However, he did agree with the advantage of grit removal and extending the life of the pumps. It would also make the sedimentation in the basins themselves easier to handle and is similar to what Bozeman has and also takes care of any slush issues. Construction prices do go up each year. The cost of this project for the items that did not change from last year went up approximately 1.5- 2%. Each year you wait the project go up in cost. However, it would make the City use part of their contingency budget to cover the additional costs. Mayor Nelson read the following statement from the Clerk/Treasurer. "Brittney the Mayor asked me to provide you with my financial opinion, regarding the SED Basin bid, for tonight's meeting. It is my stance that the City should move forward with full construction of the project, including all additive alternates. If we delay construction of the additive alternates the City would have to re -bid them, which costs money and the interest rate of the loan would increase. Also, the costs of mobilization, bond counsel, engineering, demobilization, any reductions to bulk material purchases, along with other costs would change. The City is in a financial position to do the complete project, and that is my recommendation. — Bethany Langve ClerklTreasurer. " It was questioned why, if removing the grit from the water was important was the slush ice basin removed from the base bid. 11 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 The goal was to reduce the project to a bare -bones SED Basin Project. This is a full functioning sedimentation basin. However, it does not have any extras. This project will allow the City the ability to send raw water to business such as CHS instead of sending chemically treated water to meet their water consumption needs. The additive alternatives are important, and the Mayor felt it was best to allow the Council to decide which alternatives they would like to proceed with. It was questioned if the slush ice basin was just slush removal or slush and sand/grit removal. If so, would there still be sand/grit in our water? When the river's turbidities are high, the grit is suspended within the water and does come through the intake. The SED Basins were designed to function 100% without any of the additive alternatives. However, the grit removal will allow it to function better. It will extend the life of the pumps and help reduce costs in the future. It is recommended that the City does do this project, if not now at some point in the future. It is not necessary for the SED Basins to function, but allows thein to function better. Council was reminded that if they vote down the additive alternatives, they will not know the price of those projects as they would need to be rebid and the cost could go up. It was questioned how solids would be removed if not by heavy excavation equipment as done now. The proposed SED Basins would be automatic, and the sedimentation would be sucked out at the bottom similar to how a pool cleaner would work. The sediment would be sent to the ponds to be dealt with appropriately. The slush ice basin removes grit that is suspended in the water and did not settle to the bottom to be removed by the process described above. The slush ice basin uses a technic similar to gold mining to get the particulate to settle to the bottom to be removed from the basin. They did design the SED Basins to be able to address ice manually if the slush ice basin additive alternate was not approved, but that will only take care of things that are floating. The lids are retractable, and the SED basins were designed so that a mini excavator would be able to be cleaned out manually. It was questioned what the loan value the Council is considering. The loan amount would be $4.577 million, and that does include the $750,000 contingency budget. The Enterprise Fund would be responsible for repaying this amount. Enterprise Funds function similar to a business and are self-supporting. Council was reminded of the potential should they not move forward with this project the City could lose approximately $2 million in funds. The staff has looked at ways to reduce costs, such as items they could do themselves or did not need. It was questioned if the City could purchase all materials on their own to help reduce costs. It was stated that COP Construction is a large construction company and will have sub -contractors who bid for those items. It would be difficult for the City to be able to beat those prices. It was stated in the past the Council is presented with many change orders. It was questioned what types of change orders the Council could expect. 5 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 While the engineering firm does do their due diligence to reduce the number of a change order that need to be presented to Council, there are occasions that things do come up. Many times the operators will bring forward something that was not thought of, such as adding an extra set of stairs. The contingency budget is $750,000 if there are no change orders the loan will be reduced by $750,000. It was questioned how the bid presented today compares to the bid presented last fall. When looking at the items that remained the same on both bids the cost increased approximately 1.5- 2%. Some items were removed such as the access road. The scope of the project is different. However, the cost of the overall project is very similar. Staff worked to find items they could do themselves or did not need. The other factor is the bidding environment was much more competitive which was in the City's favor. While the City is still looking at spending over $7 million there are many changes, such as the City is in a better financial position. The loan the City would take out is less than it would have been last time, as the City has more reserves on hand. It was questioned if the City would potentially save money on the interest of the loan. While the loan the City would take out is less, the interest rate did increase slightly to 2.5%. To further clarify the additional funding sources such as grants, donations and reserves were discussed. It was reiterated by a Council Member that the only thing the City has lost is tune. That time is the most valuable, and that the City does live near a seismic zone. At this time it would be risky to put off this project any further, as the project will take almost a year to complete. It was clarified the project timeline is 10 months. However, the timeframe is very dependent on the river and its turbidities. And therefore there is a small window of time in which the work can be completed. More than likely the contractor would begin construction early this fall. The SED basins can be offline starting approximately October I" but must be operational by March I" • Resolution — A resolution of the City Council amending the Purchase and Procurement Policy for the City of Laurel Mayor Nelson did request that Sam Painter, City Attorney, be present to answer any questions the Council may have. The only changes made to the policy are the clarifications made on purchases from $1,000 to $4,999, purchases under $1,000 and the statements listed on the last page. The Mayor did meet with a union employee who had a concern about their ability to get a department head signature to purchase small items, which is done on a regular basis. There was a change made to allow for an employee to make a purchase by signing a purchase order along with their immediate supervisor's signature to purchase up to $250. This is to prevent employees from standing around, waiting for a replacement part to be purchased. This will allow thein to continue their work. The Department Head's signature would still be needed for purchases over $250 but below $1,000. The signatures needed for purchase from $1,000 to $4,999 would be the Department Head and either the Mayor or CAO. Purchase Orders (PO) will not be paid if the purchase is made prior to the proper Purchase Order process. The date on the PO must be dated prior to the purchase. For the Enterprise Funds, the superintendents are authorized to sign, along with the Department Head, for those PO's. 6 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 Only one PO may be written for the same manufacturer or vendor for the same type of products within a week. It was questioned where in the Purchasing and Procurement Policy it states that there will be no more than one PO for the same manufacturer or vendor for the same type of products. This clarification was missed in the draft of the Purchasing and Procurement Policy. The City Attorney will update with the clarification regarding double PO's and provide the updated draft for next week's Council meeting. It was stated by one Council Member that they were pleased with the changes brought forth to the Purchasing and Procurement Policy. However, they would like to know why the Mayor or CAO's spending cap is $4,999. This Council Member questioned if a spending limit of half that would be sufficient. It was questioned how often a purchase of over the proposed spending cap reduction would need to be made, and how fast that purchase would need to be placed. It was responded that Department Heads are present at the City daily, they are given a budget to be able to run the City, and if the Council would consider reducing their spending limit, it could hinder their ability to do their jobs effectively. It was questioned why have Department Heads if the Council does not have faith in their ability to spend money appropriately. Some examples of times when a purchase is in the top half of the Mayor or CAO's spending range were given. Such as, repairing a backhoe for $3,000 or repair a transmission for $4,000. These are purchases that should not be held up in the process as it prohibits employees from being able to do their work effectively. It was reiterated that City Council is responsible for all warrants as mandated by the State statute. It was stated that the response of sometimes there are repairs that do fall closer to the $5,000 mark was sufficient. However, it seems like a large amount of money that can be spent without running through any other filters. It was clarified in the past the Budget/Finance Committee only met once a month. That meant the potential delay could be closer to five weeks. Now that the Budget/Finance Committee meets twice a month that has helped reduce that need. It was clarified that the $5,000 purchase limit was originally chosen as that becomes a capital purchase. The Enterprise Funds run similarly to a business. They have expenses going out that employees have not control over. The lower the purchase limit, the more cumbersome any purchasing became. The current spending caps seem to be working well. The Public Works Director stated that he is constantly in contact with the Mayor regarding any and all purchases in his department. It was clarified most of the large purchases have to do with one of the three Enterprise Funds. For purchases of pumps or costly repairs or repairs to a garbage truck in an accident. There are many purchases for small items such as paper and pens. Purchases over $5,000 still come out of the Department's budget and go to the Budget/Finance Committee. They bring forward various bids and discuss why the Department Head chose the bid they did. Mayor Nelson stated as an example he did approve a recent purchase of approximately $4,000 for fire hose testing which is required to be done. 7 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 In looking at this policy from the standpoint of what does the Budget/Finance Committee do. There are many purchases for small items, for example, calendars. When Budget/Finance Committee meets and sees an opportunity to suggest possible cost-saving measures, such as calendars. Why are they not allowed to question purchases without stepping on Department Heads toes? Does the Budget/Finance Committee have the authority to question purchases to the extent of potential cost savings? Or is this discussion only budget cuts and the overall spending of the City. In the past, there was no policy directing how purchases were to be made. There were significant delays as the Department Heads have shared with you previously. A previous Mayor wanted to look into better options to streamline this process. Other City Councils do delegate their authority to their Mayor or Finance Officers. There is a level of trust that the proper people are in those positions. There has never been an example where there is illegal spending. However, by asking to reduce spending caps, it is essentially a step back to when the things were more cumbersome. As for the example of what is spent each year on calendars. The Budget/Finance Committee could most defiantly suggest areas they think needs improvement, but it is an executive branch discussion, and the Mayor should have those discussions with Staff. The Council could put in the budget that they want to only allow 2% for this line item or that line item for the Department Head; it is in there purview. When discussions about creating a Purchasing and Procurement Policy began. The discussion was for the Mayor to have the authority to spend up to the State statue limit, which was $50,000 at the time. Through the years Council did not like that option and set the current spending caps. The $5,000 limit was agreed upon by Council as it is defined as a capital purchase. The Budget/Finance Committee's authority is from $5,000 to $80,000 as listed in the Purchasing and Procurement Policy. It was questioned why the City needed a new policy. There were areas that could be clarified. There were some abuses, but it was not widespread. It was also brought to the Mayor's attention the need for employees, with an immediate supervisor's signature, to have the ability to spend up to $250 to be able to do their job well. It is also very expensive to have just the Department Head be able to sign PO's. Some departments write a lot of PO's and allowing the superintendents the ability to sign helps reduce that cost. There were PO's that came in with an invoice dated today but a PO dated two weeks ago. The Mayor will work closely with the new CAO on their role in this process. The CAO will not be signing claim checks; the Mayor will continue to check each prior to signing the check. It was questioned why during the course of this discussion is it assumed that Council wants to go back to the old days. It was a veiled threat if a policy such as the one presented was not brought before Council. It was questioned why people are getting bent out of shape by asking a question to do the job that is mandated by law. It was questioned why it is perceived as distrusting the Department Heads when there have been abuses that have occurred. The changes presented today are good changes but may need tweaks in the future. It was questioned what exactly is the responsibility of the Budget/Finance Committee. As previously pointed out by the Mayor the Budget/Finance Committee approved almost every purchase reacquisition presented to them. Mayor Nelson asked that Council have faith in him to enforce this policy. It is his responsibility to manage personnel. Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 It was stated that questioning purchases is part of the checks and balances and to request that the Mayor make an executive change. The Budget/Finance Committee would like the ability to ask questions, ask if there is a better way to spend the City's money, etc. There was a miscommunication in what the Budget/Finance Committees intent was. All City Council Members should have the ability to answer any constituent's questions regarding the finances. The Public Works Director spoke for his department. He takes spending the citizen's money very seriously. He stated that while he and those in his department do their best to find the most cost- effective options when they do need to spend money. He and his department are always open to suggestions as they may not have known of another option to consider when making the purchase, regardless of who the suggestion is from. Mayor Nelson made a clarification and apology for statements made at the previous Council Workshop. At the previous Council Workshop, he had stated that the previous CAO was doing things that were illegal. The Budget/Finance Committee was instructed to do things that were illegal. After candid discussions with Staff regarding potential misinterpretation. His use of the word illegal, was as defined in sports such as there was a flag on the field for illegal behavior. He did not mean illegal as in a criminal act. When he used the term illegal in reference to certain individuals it may have been construed to convey that they had done something criminal. He intended to mean they had done something improper and should have used that term instead. It was requested that Council discuss the expectation of the Budget/Finance Committee at a future Workshop. Mayor Nelson stated that he would most likely add this to the June 22nd [June 26`h] Council Workshop as he intends to bring the CAO candidate to the June 12`h Council Workshop so Council may ask any questions of that individual. Council Issues: o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event The Army Corp of Engineers was supposed to be onsite to review the wetland survey. However part of those wetlands is under water. The site visit has been rescheduled. The survey is completed, and the City was hoping to wrap up all the loose ends for the permit. o Update on 2018 Laurel Declared Emergency — Flooding Mayor Nelson declared a state of emergency on May 23, 2018, after the predicted rainfall would have put the crest of the river at over 15 feet. This would have been higher and potentially more devastating than what the City experienced in 2011. The City did start preparing a temporary wall as the retaining wall is part of the SED basin project. The Public Works Director worked with Yellowstone County DES to prepare for this event. The rain that was predicted ended up hitting other areas besides Laurel. The state of emergency will last until the threat of flooding has subsided closer to the end of June. o West Railroad Discussion Mayor Nelson clarified that this item is listed on the agenda as a discussion item because there has been confusion on what has already been done and what still needs to be done to move this item forward. E Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 Forrest Sanderson, the Interim Planner, spoke regarding this process. An email from Katie Potts, Butte and Billings District Planner, outlined the process from start to finish as is attached to these minutes. He gave the example of West Holly in Sidney, Montana. The State is paying all the costs associated with this project. The City (Sidney) did have to pay a portion to the project. However, the funds had been given to the City (Sidney) by the State. This process does allow the City (Laurel) to leverage their Urban Transportation dollars with significant funding from the State to complete the project. The City needs to work with the County to move this project forward. It is unclear where the City is in this process. It was questioned why the request needs to go forward from the City and the County. It was responded that this is part of the process, most likely to ensure that both the City and County agree on the project. It was further clarified that urban routes are a geographical area and may be located both within the City and County. The urban route for West Railroad goes into the County under the bridge to Frank Road. It was questioned if the City co-operated with the County when 8th Avenue was improved via this process. It was responded that yes the City and County did work together and had for many years. It was questioned if the Council wanted to improve the section of West Railroad from 1st Avenue to 8`h Avenue, just the portion within the City, would the City need to work with the County. It was stated that the City would need to work with the County as the funds the City would receive can be used for the County as well. The City currently has approximately $1.3 million which is for the local jurisdiction not just within City limits. It was questioned if when the City approaches the County could it be explicitly stated that the City seeks to improve West Railroad from 1st Avenue to 8th Avenue. It was stated the City should be able to request that, but will still need to navigate the process. It is recommended that City staff sit down and see if the project is viable, work with the County before sending the letter to the State. It was stated by a Council Member that they are frustrated with the obstacles they have encountered with this project. Discussions began in 2010 and had been passed between Public Works Committee and City Council a few times. At one point it was stated a resolution would be needed to identify West Railroad as the next urban route, then at another time stated that a resolution would not be needed. Finally, West Railroad was incorporated into Resolution No. R17-12, which was the idea to build a round -a -bout at the top of the underpass. West Railroad Street is in deplorable condition and needs to be repaired. It has been requested that Council do what it needs to do to be able to instruct staff to follow up further on this issue. This Council Member recognized that there could be delays at the State level as well. Forrest gave another example of the City of Kalispell. They had a road similar to West Railroad that their Council wanted to change the flow on the streets and instate some one-way streets to help relieve congestion in the neighborhoods. They were not allowed to make these changes. 10 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 Multiple Council Members agreed that this street is in desperate need of repair and agreed that the City needs to investigate further. There was concern regarding the pothole that does fill with water. Many drivers will drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid this pothole. Mayor Nelson stated due to the fact that multiple Council Members have expressed their desire for this project to move forward. He will direct Staff to look into this matter further. He did remind Council that there will be obstacles along the way such as drainage issues, adjacent properties, infrastructure issues, etc. He stated he does at one time remember a Council Member requesting a resolution of intent, however that resolution must have been lost in the shuffle. It was questioned what Council would need to do to resurrect that resolution as previously mentioned. Mayor Nelson clarified that Council would not want to resurrect the previously mentioned resolution as it connected East and West Railroad with a round -a -bout and connected these funds with the TIF District. As suggested by the Interim Planner to have staff meet and go through the process and identify where the City is in that process. If was clarified that the City did their part, however, the County was not engaged, and a joint letter presented to the State. Staff will need to verify if the resolution put forward connecting both East and West Railroad is still valid, if so what the next steps will be. Either way, the City, and County will need to present a joint letter to the State at some point. It was questioned if Council could snake a motion at tonight's meeting to allow the Mayor to move forward as stated above. Mayor Nelson clarified that because tonight's meeting is not a business meeting, no motion could be made. However, if he felt that Council desired this to move forward, he will instruct Staff to move forward on this project. It was questioned if the Council would need to revoke the resolution, R17-12, that included East Railroad and the round -a -bout prior to moving forward. Mayor Nelson stated he would have the City Attorney look into this matter further and clarify. He stated that this item would be kept on the agenda as a discussion item until it is no longer relevant. He stated he did not think there was a citizen of this City that did not agree the road needs replacement. It would benefit the City to improve the road as far west as possible as this is the direction our Growth Policy states the City should grow. This street does need to withstand the light industrial use and heavy traffic. o Laurel Subdivision Regulations, Review — Forrest Forrest Sanderson, the Interim Planner, spoke regarding the subdivision regulations, see the attached memo outlining the regulatory deficiencies with our current subdivision regulations. This issue had been taken to the City/County Planning Board to determine how this should move forward after a discussion with the County Commissioners. The master service agreement between the City of Laurel and KLJ does not cover the rewriting of the subdivision regulations and requires written authorization beyond the initial investigation to continue. From the meeting with the Yellowstone County Commissioners, they require that the regulations looked like the existing format used by Yellowstone 11 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 County and did not want a separate document or procedure in the Laurel Planning District. This means the City cannot go to a streamlined version of the subdivision regulations that KLJ has used in the past. The only way the City of Laurel could use their own document is to give up their extraterritorial subdivision jurisdiction and do their own thing within the corporate limits of the City. This is not advocated, as the only way for a City to responsibly grow is through the intergovernmental cooperation and application of joint planning. Due to the fact the County is requiring a format that is separate from what KLJ has used in the past and the written authorization to further work on this project, as listed in the master services agreement, Council will need to approve this work. If the City were to be allowed to use the format that KLJ has used in the past this project would be quick and relatively inexpensive. It is difficult to determine the cost as it is unclear exactly how many hours it would require to update the regulations to the correct format. However, the City is working on hiring a Planner soon. One of the best ways for a new Planner to understand the subdivision regulations is to have them work on updating the regulations to the current legislation. Council has two options in this case. The first being to contract with KLJ to update the regulations to be current and consistent with Montana law. The cost of this service would be greater than what had been previously discussed with the Mayor, as the cost discussed was the streamlined format that the City is unable to use. Some of these legislative changes occurred over a year ago, and the City has run off of their current regulations without incident. The Interim Planner will work to ensure that the City while using their current subdivision regulations, does follow all State statues. Option two is to wait and see who is hired for the Planner position and have the Interim Planner work with the new hire on updating the subdivision regulations as part of their hand off in duties. The Interim Planner is willing and able to update the subdivision regulations. However, the cost is unknown at this time. Mayor Nelson stated that it would be more cost-effective and a wonderful learning opportunity, regardless of what experience the new Planner may have. The City will be going out for a Planner very soon. o Floodplain Regulation Updates — Forrest Forrest Sanderson, the Interim Planner, spoke regarding the Floodplain Regulations. The City does not have the option to wait for a newly hired Planner to move forward with updating the floodplain regulations. While going through paperwork in the Planners office to determine priorities for the Interim Planner, a letter was discovered. The letter from DNRC, dated over two years ago was discovered behind the desk and is attached to these minutes. By November 2016 the City was to have updated their floodplain regulations to be consistent with the State of Montana. Some of the items listed have already been taken care of by contacting DNRC. The Interim Planner is CFM certified which is one of the listed findings. It was questioned by DNRC where the updated floodplain regulations where in which the Interim Planner responded that he was on the Council Workshop agenda to discuss and recommend a written authorization to KLJ to update the floodplain regulations. If it had not been for the hurricane season last year, the City would have received a visit from FEMA and would have received some not very good news. Such as the ability for the City to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. There is not an indefinite grace period to become compliant. The Interim Planner has updated floodplain regulations to the current model in nine separate jurisdictions. Therefore, the update of the floodplain regulations can be done quickly and cost-effectively. The expected cost should be approximately $5,000. 12 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 Mayor Nelson stated that the resolution to give approval to being work would be placed on the next Workshop on June 12th. With the update of the floodplain regulations, the City will be in compliance with all findings in the attached memo. This issue was brought forward right as Laurel received predictions of historic flooding. It was questioned if a resolution could be prepared for next week's City Council meeting. Council expressed their desire to have this resolution be prepared and vote on this resolution at next week's City Council meeting. This item has been added to the draft agenda for next week's City Council meeting. o Community Garden Jason Nicholson, 320 7th Avenue, is the pastor at Our Saviors Lutheran Church located at 707 W. 3rd Street. He spoke regarding property that the church owns and would like to turn into a Community Garden. Last year he applied for an ELC World Hunger Grant. The church was awarded $3,000 to start a Community Garden. As they began planning this garden, they have run into issues in regards to water. The church looked into the feasibility of drilling a well and found that the water is not useable. The church is looking to partner with other organizations within the City. They wanted to bring this item before City Council to see if the Council would be willing to partner with them on this project. Vi Hills, 2707 N. Ramshorn Drive, spoke regarding the four Community Gardens in Billings and their known obstacles. She has worked at a few different gardens and is a member of the Yellowstone County Master Gardening Association. They are working with some of the people who have experience with Community Gardens to ensure they do not duplicate the same mistakes. They understand that this is a long-term project with a timeline of approximately two years. The water needs would be approximately three months each year. One garden in Billings charges a fee for a plot, and they take care of all watering. The church is willing to donate the land for this use if need be. It was questioned how this group would instruct Public Works to hook up water to this location and what would the billing process look like. Pastor Jason clarified that there is a curb box already installed and they would only need a meter. It was questioned if the request of Council is approval to move forward with this project. Pastor Jason clarified that their request is a discounted water rate on that meter for this project only. Would like to sit down and learn what all possibilities are. It was clarified that staff does not have the authority to adjust any water rates that Council would need to approve that adjustment. This would require a public hearing and a notice to all citizens of the City. It was questioned if the City bills itself to water City Parks. The City does not charge itself to water its parks. 13 Council Workshop Minutes of May 29, 2018 It was questioned if this land could be donated to the City and viewed as a park. The City Attorney clarified that there is nothing in the rate structure that allows Staff the ability to give a discount. If a discount is given for this, others would approach Council for a discount as well. If the land is donated to the City, then no one can profit from this land. It would require a further examination to answer some of these questions. Mayor Nelson asked if Pastor Jason and Vi Hills would be able to ask what other gardens have done for water and any special considerations they have received. He asked to bring back any findings on the next Council Workshop schedule June 12`f'. The City Attorney reminded Council of the extensive process to change the water rates. Other Items There were none. Review of Draft Council Agenda for June 5, 2018 The addition of the resolution for the Interim Planner to work on updating the floodplain regulations has been added to the agenda. Attendance at the June 5, 2018, Council Meeting Heidi stated she would be absent at next week's Council meeting. Announcements Council Member Klose thanked the Mayor for his speech at the Cemetery for Memorial Day. Council Member McGee thanked the Mayor for expediting the floodplain regulations resolution. Council Member Eaton had attended the first Coffee with a Council Member. She was given a list of complaints from a constituent. She requested pennission from the Mayor and Council to will work with the Public Works Director to resolve any of the listed complains and bring back to Council at the next Workshop. Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, reminded Council that there is the final meeting regarding the Yellowstone River Recreation Project Priority Plan. This meeting is with Governor Bullock and Attorney General Fox at Riverfront Park at 11:00 a.m. May 30, 2018. The council workshop adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Res ctfull s mitted, Brittney Moonna 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. 14 Brittney Moorman From: Kurt Markegard Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 3:17 PM To: City Mayor; City Clerk; Brittney Moorman Subject: FW: Urban Priority Please see below. Does anyone want to print this out and give to City Council. Kurt From: Potts, Katie [mailto:kpotts@mt.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 3:08 PM To: Kurt Markegard <kmarkegard@laurel.mt.gov> Cc: Strizich, Carol <cstrizich@mt.gov>; Nelson, Rod <rodnelson@mt.gov> Subject: Urban Priority Hi Kurt — thanks for following up today on the use of Urban Funds. So I don't miss anything, I'm including the information provided to Noel a year or two ago. Once you have had a chance to discuss with both the City and County the process to nominate the desired project (W. Railroad), it will be beneficial for the City to meet with MDT District staff and MDT Planning staff and discuss the scope of work if a full reconstruction project is deemed unfundable. This meeting can occur before a formal request is submitted to MDT to program a project. I hope this is enough information to get a conversation started tonight at your meeting. In your request to MDT, please be sure the following items are addressed/noted: • Project priority is established through the local governing processes to include representation of both the City and the County. o Project must be on a designated Urban Highway System Route o Project must be in an approved Transportation Plan if one exists • Once a project has been identified and approved through local processes, MDT is notified in a letter directed to: Carol Strizich Statewide & Urban Planning Supervisor Montana Department of Transportation Rail, Transit & Planning Division PO Box 201001 Helena, MT 59620 The letter should be signed by the appropriate local official(s). Appropriate local officials are City Commission, City Council or the Mayor and County Commission Chair. The letter should detail the project, to include the following: o Local official approval date o Project scope: Description of the project, location, project limits, and other relevant project information ■ Note: Scope should align with recommendations in the LRTP (if applicable). o Anticipated cost of the project to include all phases (PE, RW, IC, and CN/CE). ■ Note: MDT can help establish an estimate. o Amount of local commitment if anticipated project costs exceed available STPU funds. o Describe how the project is to be phased per available funding. Applicable to projects with cost estimates exceeding available STPD funding. Once MDT receives the City's request: • MDT Planning staff reviews project request and formally responds to the City for next steps. ® MDT staff presents project to the Transportation Commission. The Commission takes action on the project and, if approved, the project is added to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and programmed. The City is notified of Commission action and MDT begins consultant selection for the project. Note that the City does not need to hire a consultant or manage the project, this is handled by MDT. Thanks, Katie Potts Butte and Billings District Planner Montana Department of Transportation 406-444-9238 kpotts@mt.gov 261, 1sabyRoad oiffinpNil 59/my3o ^opasmpy xu,msCOm Memorandum Date: 3/27/2018 To: Laurel city -County Planning Board [opyto: KortK4orkegani From: Forrest Sanderson, A|CP, CFyII RE: Lavne| Subdivision Regulations, Review RerD3[k3 As I performed a cursory overview of the codification of the 2017 Laurel Subdivision Regulations, I did a cursory review of the balance of the document to determine if there were any additional iterns that may beworthy o[consideration for inclusion inthe Regulations. During this review, / noticed that the City of Laurel Regulations do not include the modifications enacted as part of the 2017 Legislative Session. Primarily, the 2017 changes make provisions for the review and approval of Phased Subdivisions and correct deficiencies in the enabling legislation and other items identified in the Legacy Ranch Case in Ravalli County as follows: This legislation mandates dme|ioesfor Lhereview and approval o[final plats. Although | air) not aware of an issue in the City of Laurel, apparently in some jurisdictions final plats have riot been acted upon inareasonable amount oftime. inthe broadest ofterms, the final plat review timeline islimited to60days: � 20 days for the subdivision administrator to review for conformance; 20 days for the subdivision administrator to review any additional inforaration subi-nitLed; 2Odays for the 8overn|ngbody <oreview and approve ordeny the final plat. }+ The final plat application will need to be submitted GO days prior to expiration of the preliminary plat approval. These changes Should be included in the Subdivision Regulations. This legislation addresses issues raised in the Legacy Ranch and Aspen Trails Court Case out Of KavaUi[ouo\y. In the Court Decision, the local government was required to apply a "hard look" standard ofreview to Subdivisions within their jurisdiction. eNG|mssn|wG. *E|M4C|wEo In general Lenn5, the legislation provides clarification that an Environmental Assessment for subdivision is NOT an Environmental Assessment under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, but ihestandard o[review sithe local level is "Ai biLnsty,CaphdousorUobw(ui" These changes should be included in the Subdivision Regulations. This legislation again addressed iSSLIes raised in the Legacy Ranch decision related to the ability of local government to approve phased subdivision applications. The legislation also ovdines procedural nuVuiremaxL4 app/nvai dme|ioes an(.] the abi|i|y lo impose condiUons on future phases asthey are proposed for- filing. These new conditions inaddition <othe original conditions imposednnthe overall deve{opmentmust bemet before the phase can beWert The necessary changes to implement phased subdivision approval shuuk1 be considered for- inclusion orinc|usion in the Subdivision Regulations. 5B 219 - Effective April 7, 2017 This legislation addresses the issues surrounding Mortgage Exempt Surveys filed before October I'Z003,and the parce|that was created was transferred toathird party. |nshn/tthe legislation legitimizes the transfers and clarifies that the remainder parcel can be conveyed without subdivision review. The necessary changes should be included in the regulations. Recommended Modification - Period These changes address concerns stemminOfrom the Legacy Ranch Decision. The concern centers on the public's right to know and to meaningfully participate in governmental decisions. Additionally, there are concerns that some reasonable limit on the lifespan of a preliminary plat approval period needs toheimplemented. Tire specific recommended changes require that notice of a request to extend an approval of a preliminary plat mustappear on the agenda for the governing body, that the governing body p,uwide an opportunity for the public to comment on the requested extension and that the maximvmcumu|atiVepe/iodforanapprova|orapne|iminoryp|atis/ixedtoareasnnob|etime|ine. These changes should be considered for inclusion in the Subdivision Regulations. cmC/NEcn|NC. ns|mxo|mco DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION y: �• STC\'C BULLOCK GOv[RNOR -STATE OF (��1t:�NT,gNA DIRCCTOR'SOFFICE 1i06137{•_ TCLCf.AX NU11Rf.R (1061344•2bS3 �l•TL. `_:. , i_ i t `-.'� • ��.'�f�� 1\'A I L R RLSOURCLS 1)1VIS[ON (406)444•b6U1 Tri rrak NL1\IRfRSI30b1111.Oii3/(1061113-:915 112219TH A\'C\UC PO BO] _01601 y� `�`-_-f IIIIII:�I1�11'i\"•1I 111 ..I11I.�..\' HELENA, MONTANA 5900•1601 N-4ay 26, 2016`,0 C.l• ty of Laurel Floodplain Administrator Noel futon P.U. Box 10 Dear Noel: 1 hope this letter finds you well. I would like to thank you for meeting with nuc on Januflry 4, 2016, Please allo•,% this letter and the attached Contntunity Assistance Visit (CAV) Reports to serve as a summary ofthe relevant points covered during the visit. Aficr carclul review of the City of Laurel's floodplain program, there were a few items that we will need to follow-up with the community on: 1. "1'he City of Laurel will need to update their ordinances within six months of the date of this Community Assistance Visit follow-up letter. The community will need to update their ordinance to the 2014 model and include the 2016 LOMB. If additional time is needed for the ordinance update, tile,, the community should submit written request to me. 2. The community needs to continue to provide information on the mitigation, enforcement and permit activities in the SH iA. 3. DNRC Floodplain program will continue to work with Noel on training for mapping products and tools. 4. DNRC will send a copy of the I -IS to the community and work with Laurel on the ordinance update. 5. DNRC will provide additional information on flood proofing for the applicant and the coil' 1111111 6. DNRC will provide an cxampie of a Recovery Plan to the community. 7. The community should continue to educate landowners about permit requirements and development practices along the river and in designated floodplains. 8, Additional outreach and education should be performed annually throughout the community to highlight the benefits of flood insurance. ). Please review and provide comments on the attached CAV report for any errors or information that may have been left out. As mentioned previously, it is required that both DNRC and FEMA approve ally changes to your floodplain regulations Prior to adoption. It is a required review process as well as a benefit for the community to make sure the updated regulations meet both state and federal regulations. STATE WATER PROJECTS WATER i,lAN:1CLMENT WATER OPERATIONS WATER RIGHTS BUREAU BUREAU BUREAU BUREAU (400 444.6b3b (406) 344.607 (306)133.0560 (406) 413.6610 (MCC the dnw comes, 1 will l)c° available to wwt with you throughout this process to assist &T any questions and concerns. I lere is my contact inknnatian, along with information tar the Rational Flrnd hlsurrnice Progr,fm {NFIP) Specialist i`or i��Iontaua. �Iarijc� Brad��. Please RxI We to contact either one ofus xvith questions: lyci Sears NI FIP Coordinator Montana DNHT' Fl xylain Progrmn 1424 9" Ave. llelcna.'.IT 59620 406-444-6654 tserir:sltimtGav Ndw jo Brady NFIP Specialist FCNIA Region Vlll PA Box 25267 DI C, 13ldg 710 Dcnveq CC) 80225 303-235-483-S nr<�rijo.l�raci� rfr`.'.cihs.�oti 1 know that in the last I• v months, you have been rdhTly worlcing :with dam Johnson. DNRC RegiongI wTnwci', on Flood plair, 1:rn jc s alai In orn tion. I `vnCu£i1-age tho cmnm(itdy to "MGMW to UtiIKe Ow- DNRC Floodplain Program as a community resource:. I look forward to Wking with you soon and plane call me with any questions you may We concerning this letter or the enclosed CAV reports. Sincerely, f n. 1 rad 'SuirS,T`I'14'1 PHional likmd Insurance Pragram (NFIP) Coordinator Montana DNRC Floodplain Program 1424 qct: ;\Ve Helena, NIT 59620-1601 4004441654 cc: klarijo Brady, FI MA; Sam .lohnson, Montana DNRC Attachments: Community Assistance Report (Draft) COMMU3.741TY ASSISTANCE VISITREPORT (`JTY OF LAL'REL VF I if OWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA JAALWZY 4, 2016 y, Floodplain Management Regulations — (Are there any problems Serious —IN-finor ---None - NI/A) - Minor Laurel regulates development within the, identified floodplain via an Ordinance arneilding Chapter 15.70 ofthe.Laurel Municipal Code "Floodplain Regulations" effective Novernber 1, 2013. A review of this ordinance has Found the rivajority of the docutimit in compliance with the requiroments of suction 60.3 of Title 44., of the Code of"Federal. ReaLlIa-ions (44CFIZ). The only minor issue vv-ith the ordinance is the state Illodel used for this local ordinance Section 1.7., the responsibility of flt-)t)dpliiiiidi-niiiis7-,iiioii is with the office of plannilig. Copies of the ordinance are available, in the Clerk and Recorders and Planning Offices. Issues: Currently, the effective ordinance is based on the 2013 version of the State Model I'locAolain Ordinance and is an older vcl-sion of the State Model completed in 2014. The, community will also need to include the LOMR 15-08-1029P to reflect the change in ,jurisdictional area for the SFHA. Remedies: The COMMUnity should look into updating their ordinance to reflect the small changes to the state 2013 version and to include LOMR 15-08-10291' dated January 8, 2016. The Community was provided a copy of the 2014 State Model Floodplain Ordinance which is also a-vai I able for do,.vil' clad at www.nittloodplaai«..znt.gov. Traci Scars with Montana DNRCencoura(yed the community to work with DNRC and FEMA in the updating or amending of the ordinance. 2) Engineering or other problems with the maps of Flood Insurance Study -- (Are there I Ilem any pro h s with the cornnatinity administrative and enforcement procedures — SeriOLI5- Nlirjor-Nonc-N/A) — Minor. The current effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIR-TV-1s),ire datccINovember 6, 2013. The2.0113 ISIS and FIR.Ms ametided the initial detailed Flood Insurance Study (FTS) with an effective date of July 6. 1982 and the accompanvimay Flood lnsuranec. Rate Nlaps 'chat went effective, January 6. 1983 Issues: Noel refcrs to the 1`11614s and rl-']S when needed. She Would like sonic additional tfaillillu Z� on hwk-, to use the maps and Flood insurance Study. Noel is not aware of any issues or changes to the Special Flood.1-Jazard Area (SFI-1A) since November 6, 2013, file corrununity requested an additional copy of the FIS for the City of Laurel. The C011111-11.11litV Will also need to amend their Current ordinance to reflect LO, -IR 15-08- 1029P. Re-medies: f-')N�k�(,Floodplaiii program will continue to work with Noel oil training for mapping products and tools. DNNR.0 will send a copy ofthe FIS to the community and work with Laurel oil the ordinmice update. 3 Biennia] Repoft Data -- (Are there any problems with the community Biennial Report i Data --- lvLi jor-Minor-None-INUA) - Minor Per FE -\,IA Region VIII. at this tirric FEIVIA is not requiring subaafttal of Community Bicron it reports. 4) Violations/Enfoi-cement -- (Are there any potential violations of the community management regulations? — Yes-'No-N/A)Minor At the time of the CAV.. Laurel was not aware of any violations, Issues: In March, 2016 the community started an enforcement procedures on a new,9 as station that is going into the SI','IIA. The community has asked for additional information oil floodproofirig for the applicant and the C0111111U.Flity. lZemedies: The community is working with DNRC: to help resolve this enforcement issue. It is important that the community is familiar Avith the NFIP program. DNRC is also working I closely with the Department of Envi-rontneiltal Quality (DEQ) — underground storage division. Traci Sears and Steve Story with DNRC Floodplain prograrn met with DEQ representatives to go over the NFIP and local floodplain programs. Both agencies are Z:� In dedicated dicated to moving forward with improved collaboration and understanding. le t, DNRC will provide additional information on, floodproofing for the applicant and the community. 5) Administration and Enforcement Procedures (Are there an, problems with the conlML1,14 administrative- and enforcerne-itt procedures? -- Serious -Minor -None -N/A) Minor The initial detailed Flood Insurance Study (11S) with accompanyinc,;- Flood insurance Rate Maps (FIR 4s) went effective on November 6, 2013. As a condition of continued participation in the NFIP, the City of Laurel was required to adopt floodplain. manag�',ment regulations that accepted the FIS and aCCOD)pW'yi!lg 1 -naps as well as meeting local, state, and federal requirements. Laurel has adopted floodpiain mcanag -ed under Montana State Statute gernent regulations consistent witli 'those requite _'R 60.' (d), the City of Laurel has adopted Title 76, and Chapter 5. Acmdhigj to 44 CI Love] "D" Floodplain Revulations. The study and maps are die primary tools used by the I RMII floocil)liiiliciniiiiisti-atoi- in assuring that all development in the, cicsignatc-A 11.), odplain meets the standards set forth in the floodplain management. fCgUlations, The City Planner, Noel F.aion, has assumed the duties of tile. floodplain administrator for the City of LaLlrel. She is new to the floodplain program and is eager to b� CdLICU(Od acrd trained on die local program and the LFII'. Section 1.07 ., identified the responsibility for =loociplaiii Adiiiinistratiori witli the City of Laurel planning office. Floodplain permits are separate from all other permits; i.e. building permits. information provided to the. cornninnity included: Answors to Questions on the NFIP `file Benefits of Flood II)SLIM111CC Versus Disaster Assistance Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding l: '? r < Manual 6) Floodplain Management Program -- ('Are Are there any other problems in the conlrnullity's floodplain -Inanagement program — Seri ous-%jf i nor-Nono-_N/A) Minor I The instances of floodplain permit applications were minimal and Traci Sears and Sam Johnson with Montana DNRC assisted with reviews and information for the community. There have been no variances or appeals issued or submitted by the conimunity in the last year. Issues Permits may have been required for emergency projects/activi ties that may Have oCCUlTed n I in the designated floodplain. it is also important for tile, cormilunity to recognize any type of development in the I 00 -year floodplain should have a floodplain permit; i.e. Substantial improvements, fill, retaining walls, etc_ Remedies: Training is a key component in Understanding fhc requirements and responsibilities of the local floodplain pro(rain. Montana DNRC provides training throughout the year to local communities and various stakeholders. D'NRC provides training information and on.-lineCD training modules (currently in draft f0mi) at w ww. In t1l oodlalaiin.int.gov. 7) Programmatic issue m- problems identified — (Yes -No) — Yes (progranamatic problems relate to the nation or region, not just a community) Issues: A. CaTeful and well thought decisions shotild be made when doing any type of development in and around a designated or natural floodplain. 11. Flood. Insurance outreach should be a main component for a local floodplain program. Remedies: A. The cornniuniy should continue to educate landowners about permit requirements and development practices along the river and in designated floodplains. B. Additional outreach and cducatim) should be performed annually dirongliout flie commuraw to highlight the benefit,; of flood insurance. NARRATIVE: 1) Communiq, Background Notm Laturel is located in the sontlnvcstern corner of' Yellowsforle County, in south-central Montana. in Yellowstone County. 'I'lic principal industries in Laurel include an oil -ofmory i , , a lai-LTe railroad yard, and a modular horne plant. Land use in Laurel consists of agricultural pasture, drykuid. farming irrigated crops, and urban development, Development along Italian Ditch consists of business districts and industrial parrs. Nutting Dicli is located in a rapidly growing residential area consisting of'hOme- Sites and subdivisions. Several small tributaries such as Clarks Fork Ditch, Italian Ditch. and Nuttim-, Ditch, and a rnpjor tributary, Clark,,,, Fork Yellowstone River, join Yellowstone River near Laurel. The topography N the comn`11.1114Y consists Of gently sloping floodplains and alluvial -[an.,, rising to local terraces. The runoff Water ca.11""Ing1looding problems within the corporate emits of Laurel originates as rainfall runoff ftorn local drainage areas surrounding the city. Floodwaters in the Italiana Ditcn and Main Street study reaches originate frons all Liligauacd area west I t:� __ ofLaurel. Flooding on May 18, 1978, was the worst in the history of Laurel and was used as the basis for the Main Street anti Italian Ditch Studies. Major floods of record on Yellowstone River Occurred in 1918, 1943, 1944, 1967, 1974, 197-5.. and 2011. Laurcl entered the regular phase of the NFIP on. January 6, 1983, 2) Mitigation Grants Notes: Zfl Yellowstone County and the City of Laurel adopted Multi -Jurisdictional Pro -Disaster Mitigation Plan Update in 2011 The community is wonting on soveral grant Opportunities to assist in the relocation and update to the water intake system. The community is closing out the riprap project on Riverside Par](. There is a concern on the ongoing erosion issues downstream oftlie bridge and near Riverside Park. The community would also like to get aii example of Recovery Plan to start putting together. 3) Other Findings Notes: r -I The C011IM1111ITY is interested in all training opportunities to assist the planner/floodplain administrator. NIs. Sears briefly discussed floodplain training opportunities to include DNRC,, F"'NAL and AMEN4 conferciice. Noel WM d -We to attend the ANMFM couforelice that was hold in Fairmont. 4) Genci-al CAV Notes The. fiollovMig Comniiiiiity Assistance Visit Report narrative has Been prepared by Traci Sears with the Iviontana 6epartnielit of1\1raturall R-esourecs ard C onservatioii (DNRC). Traci met with Noel Eaton l c Plaivier anal Floodph-IM Administrator for the City of Laurel on January 4, 2016 to conduct, a CAV and basic Floodplain iraiiiing. Flo 'pl, hi od a niatorlais \vcie distributed and discussed. flie last (,'AV for the comn-,unity occurred on Juni. 16, 2011 As of Jautiary 4.. 2016 CIS Insurance 0, crviow Shows that there are CUITel-It1V 13 floodplain policies in place for this conii-liunity and 11 paid losses. 5) 1..0.:11988 tN'otes: jects need to consider floodplain requirements in the design and pl-OliCC-1 COTIStrUCtiOn. Also, the coinnituifty is awlarc that prior to issuing a permit, they are require, i , �d to maks: Sure all other applicable (federalstatc. and local agency} applications; and permits have bear recei ved/iss ties for pro.jects located in the designated floodplain. {) Communiti7 Action Needed Notes: A. 'I'lt ie community needs to continue to provide, iiiforlliation on the iiiitigatioti, enforcement and, permit activities in the S1,TIA, B. Th.1- commui-ifty will need to update their ordinance to the 2014 model and include the 201 G LOMR. C, DNRC Floodplain pro,t:,trani will continue: to work with Noel ort training for mapphig products anal 1001q. D. DNRC will send a copy of the FIS to the community and work with Laurel on the ordinance update. E'. DNRC will provide additional information on floodproofing for the applicant and the COMMUMLY. F. DNFRC' wil 1 provide an example of Recovery Plan to the community. G. The commutifty should continue to educate landowners about permit requirements and development practices along the river and in designated floodplains. 13. Addit,"Lonal outreach and education should be perfornicd annually throughout the cunummity to highlight the benefits of flood insurance.