[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] I'd like to call this meeting in order and welcome you here this evening. I'd like to call on, oh, let's see, how about the public works director?
[0:14] Ingenious to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[0:28] Thank you. Roll call.
[0:32] Martha Sellers.
[0:34] Here.
[0:34] Mike Meese.
[0:35] Here.
[0:36] Jim Simon.
[0:37] Here.
[0:38] Russ Nelson.
[0:39] Here.
[0:40] Chris Menekucci.
[0:41] Here.
[0:43] Jim Doyle.
[0:44] Here.
[0:45] Renee Manimo.
[0:46] Here.
[0:51] Very good.
[0:54] Next on our agenda is the public forum. This is on every council agenda.
[0:58] agenda. Before starting your comments, please state your name and address in an audible tone
[1:03] of voice. For the record, this is a time for individuals to comment on the matters falling
[1:08] within the purview of the Belgrade City Council that are not already on the agenda. There
[1:15] will be an opportunity in conjunction with each agenda item for comments pertaining
[1:20] to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes. So first call for public
[1:29] Second call for public comment.
[1:34] Third and final call for public forum comment.
[1:38] There will be no interest in the public forum.
[1:40] We'll close the public forum.
[1:42] We'll move to our consent agenda.
[1:44] We have just items relating to drafts of minutes.
[1:50] Motion to consent agenda.
[1:53] Second.
[1:54] Moved by Council Member Simon,
[1:57] seconded by Council Member Meese.
[1:59] Is there any discussion?
[2:03] Is there any discussion?
[2:05] Is there any discussion?
[2:07] There being none, those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
[2:11] Aye.
[2:12] Those opposed, same sign.
[2:15] Motion carries unanimously.
[2:19] Next on our agenda is a proclamation.
[2:24] As soon as I find it, there it is.
[2:28] For Arbor Day, April 28th, 2003.
[2:32] City of Belgrade proclamation for Arbor Day 2023.
[2:37] Whereas Arbor Day in Montana is officially the last Friday in April.
[2:42] And whereas natural areas, trees and landscapes provide not only community beautification,
[2:48] but also economic and environmental benefits.
[2:51] And whereas trees provide many benefits to the community,
[2:55] including air purification, windbreaks, noise reduction, shade, and energy savings.
[3:01] and whereas planting trees and maintaining older trees provides an opportunity for community interaction,
[3:08] volunteerism, economic development, and environmental conservation,
[3:13] and whereas our efforts to improve the environment benefit present and future generations.
[3:19] Now therefore, I, Russell C. Nelson, the Mayor of Belgrade,
[3:22] hereby recognize April 28, 2023 as Arbor Day and encourage citizens to participate in appropriate activities
[3:30] and to take advantage of the benefits of the parks and other natural areas in our community,
[3:35] dated the 17th day of January 2023.
[3:45] Next item on our discussion agenda is to consider, discuss and consider public access and utilities
[3:53] meets for tract 1A of certificate of survey number 78A.
[3:59] Mr. Eastwood, welcome.
[4:00] good evening as you said that public access and utility easement this is
[4:06] associated with the FedEx ground project just north of East Frank Road and what
[4:13] will be through the easement if approved the extension of Yukon lane from where
[4:19] it ends currently by our water tower on that side of town the property
[4:28] The party owners already signed the easement and we went through that easement and agreement with the city attorney and came to reasonable terms, I guess, for everything on that.
[4:39] So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
[4:45] Any questions of Mr. Eastwood?
[4:47] So this will punch the road down to Frank then?
[4:50] Yes.
[4:50] And complete that?
[4:51] Yep.
[4:52] Cool.
[4:53] Good.
[4:53] Yeah.
[4:53] Yeah, yeah.
[4:56] I'd ask if there's any public comment concerning this utility easement, any public comment?
[5:06] Is there any public comment?
[5:08] They're being done.
[5:10] Is there any representatives of the applicant who wish to speak?
[5:16] Nope.
[5:17] Very good.
[5:19] We'll let the council make a decision then.
[5:25] Based on the recommendations of staff and the discussion heard,
[5:27] I move to authorize the city manager to sign the public access and utility easement with Osterman associated with tract 1a of Certificate of Survey number 78a
[5:38] Moved by council member cellar seconded by council member Matamol. Is there any discussion?
[5:46] Is there any discussion?
[5:48] Is there any discussion?
[5:52] There being none those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.
[5:56] Aye.
[5:57] All right, motion carries unanimously.
[6:04] Next item on the discussion agenda
[6:07] is to discuss possible changes
[6:09] to the wastewater allocation policy.
[6:12] Hello again.
[6:13] Hello again, Mr. Eastwood.
[6:16] As I guess some of you may be aware,
[6:19] our current wastewater allocation policy
[6:22] that was approved by city council
[6:26] For properties annexed before January 1 of 2020,
[6:32] and then they had to be within 500 feet
[6:34] of existing wastewater system lines
[6:38] to be able to be considered for allocation
[6:41] of available wastewater capacity.
[6:44] That's issued on a first come first serve basis,
[6:48] based on them submitting construction plans
[6:51] for any connections to the city system,
[6:54] and that those are reviewed and approved by the city.
[6:58] Prior to that, I think the only differences were that the annexation date was June or actually July 1st of 2018.
[7:11] About the time, I guess, when we were doing our wastewater treatment plant upgrades,
[7:16] and as we got to see that we still had some available capacity, we shifted that to the 2020 date.
[7:22] So I guess kind of what we're presenting is going to discuss among city council what direction you would like to go with allocating that available wastewater capacity as the new water reclamation facility comes online and then to make any changes I guess with recent annexations that we've had in the city.
[7:42] When the new plant comes online, will that allow some additional capacity for those subdivisions that are in various stages?
[7:54] It does. Where we're sitting at right now, and this is just to grab a number from memory,
[8:01] is about 2,000 dwelling units of available capacity with what's been allocated and approved up to this point.
[8:10] We do have some developments currently in for review such as yellow iron
[8:16] subdivision and jackrabbit crossing. Both of those have infrastructure plans in
[8:21] that are currently under review that would take away from some of that
[8:25] available capacity. Where does Ashton Meadows fit in that? Ashton Meadows
[8:29] actually has allocation they're not approved they would way we've been
[8:34] doing approval is at the final plat stage but we will kind of allocate it
[8:38] once we've reviewed the plans.
[8:41] Ash de Meadows phase one has their plans approved
[8:44] and talked to the contractor this morning.
[8:47] They're just waiting on getting a right away permits
[8:52] in order, traffic control plan
[8:54] and finalizing the construction contract
[8:55] with the development group on that
[8:58] before they start construction.
[8:59] I think they were thinking sometime here
[9:01] in the next two to three weeks.
[9:03] And that's infrastructure.
[9:05] Yeah, water, sewer, roads, sidewalks, those, I think.
[9:11] Okay, very good.
[9:13] We do have some others, you know, hanging out there, some commercial stuff that will use some of that capacity that's available.
[9:22] And then I have not heard from the airport what they're planning on doing this year.
[9:27] What they did last year, I do know we have some hangers in the works.
[9:31] And the airport did mention that they wanted to have a meeting to kind of go over some
[9:35] things, which that usually means that they have something coming up that they'd like
[9:39] to talk about.
[9:41] So I guess the direction we're looking for is how the City Council would like to proceed
[9:49] with the new plant coming online.
[9:52] And as these other developments come in, what methodology, if we continue kind of
[9:57] what we have and shifts the annexation date again to, you know, 2022 or 2023 along those
[10:05] lines or change course a little bit, but in the interest of the city, and do we look at
[10:13] where we allocate, you know, based on type of land use, do we give preference to commercial
[10:20] development, presidential, you know, what's in the best interest of the city, you know,
[10:26] And for you know that limited available capacity that we have until we can get the next upgrade done
[10:32] The staff and
[10:34] Have a recommendation
[10:37] we have discussed just
[10:40] for the
[10:41] benefit of the city that preference is
[10:44] Leading towards allocation on the commercial development as it comes in that has not had already a
[10:51] capacity reservation
[10:52] I guess explaining that, stuff we're working through at DEQ is when a final plat goes and
[11:02] we basically have to reserve all that capacity on paper, even though that development may
[11:08] not happen, it could be five years, 10 years or that down the road.
[11:14] Those ones that don't have that, like say a FedEx ground is a perfect example where
[11:19] that came in on that property annexed and moved forward with development, something along those
[11:25] lines that giving them preference over a residential, a smaller residential project.
[11:31] Yeah, a lot of the commercial will use a lot of, most commercials won't use a lot of water
[11:37] and sewer, is that the correct statement? That is fair statement, they're not as
[11:43] intensive as our residential uses, they put less strain on the limited resources that
[11:47] available. Residential also has impacts beyond just the water and wastewater side that you know
[11:54] snow removal and additional maintenance needs and additional traffic demands typically on your
[12:02] streets and that that you don't you do have with commercial but some of that's from your local
[12:06] resident population that you have already. What's the amount that we're actually pumping
[12:12] that is a significant number less than what's on paper.
[12:16] Do you know what that number is? Oh, we average
[12:21] right now it's like around
[12:25] 880,000 gallons per day. But the
[12:28] new planting, I think that's what we've been seeing coming in. The plants
[12:32] rated for 1.74 million gallons per day.
[12:36] The new plant. The new plant, yes.
[12:40] And some of that, oh, as you may be aware, you get to see when you get to get to do a tour of the water reclamation facility.
[12:51] We were not pre-treating or screening, I guess, any of the inflow coming into the lagoons.
[12:56] And so anything that's in that inflow, you know, the paper products and things like that may have affected some of the inflow measurements.
[13:04] We're still confirming if that is correct or not, but that has an impact on capacity as well.
[13:11] So now the system, we are measuring that a little more accurate with the new equipment that has been installed.
[13:19] And so we'll refine kind of that baseline number that we're at.
[13:23] So that may help on the capacity side also.
[13:26] Yeah.
[13:28] Very good.
[13:28] So Tom your alternative B is kind of the direction I guess it would be here that
[13:35] you were leaning was that your alternative B all with the commercial
[13:42] development yes maybe because look like alternative a essentially no change the
[13:50] current policy and alternative B would be the kind of take out the
[13:57] seniority. Oh and that'd be something we have discussed in the past on doing
[14:04] basically it's kind of on a first-come first-serve basis I think the
[14:08] difference here is given that preference if you have two competing
[14:12] developments would be with the commercial project.
[14:18] Mr. Cardwell. Thank
[14:19] you Mayor. Councilmember Meese the policy that you're looking at there is
[14:24] the last update that the council adopted back in 2021 and that the motion for what was adopted
[14:33] is attached to the very back of that. That's not the, that's not a staff proposal for updated
[14:40] changes for now. What the hope was tonight is to get some overall guidance and direction of
[14:47] what are, are we comfortable of staff looking at maybe adjusting the first come first serve
[14:52] policy and if so we can then go back and write that type of policy up and bring
[15:02] I would like to see us take a closer or harder look at commercial properties. If we have an
[15:09] opportunity to get something in here, put some revenue into the tax base in lieu of another
[15:17] residential area, I'd like to see us lean towards that direction. You know, not to get us in
[15:23] trouble or anything, but generate some revenue so we can get some commercial entities in
[15:29] here maybe some jobs. I don't want to have a situation where we had that one
[15:34] outfit that was going to come in here with the cookies and they couldn't get
[15:38] allocation and they pulled up stakes and went somewhere else. That would have been
[15:42] a good commercial business in Belgrade and I don't want that situation to
[15:46] happen in the future. So that would be my suggestion. Yeah another side would be
[15:53] we're low on housing and we need all the housing we get but we do have a
[15:58] a fair number of subdivisions that are already annexed and have capacity and have building
[16:03] more land to build, so I think there's enough being built that what council members suggesting
[16:09] probably works in both ways. We still have housing going on. It's already been approved
[16:14] and tried to let this go, so that's what makes sense to me, too.
[16:19] Everybody else?
[16:19] Are there any housing groups, possibilities, in the works that are moving more slowly and
[16:28] they've already had something allocated to them and that's sitting there and could be
[16:31] used in a different way or obviously that would make everybody angry.
[16:34] I'm just trying to understand what they're doing.
[16:36] Suggesting we do that, I'm just trying to find like are there same things in the
[16:40] hopper that are actually large and aren't moving very quickly and others could move
[16:45] past that?
[16:45] No, and I haven't seen either moving slowly.
[16:49] The ones that are kind of in the works
[16:52] is Mayor Brown, Ashton Meadows.
[16:55] They're gonna be getting going.
[16:57] One's actively under construction
[16:59] would be the Middle Arc Ranch subdivision, phase five.
[17:02] I've been told they're looking to get in phase six
[17:04] going on that.
[17:06] That's all the infrastructure stuff,
[17:08] no home construction as of yet.
[17:10] West Post subdivision, I think their plan
[17:13] is to get all of the infrastructure done and I can't, you know, spend their
[17:19] checkbook and I guess, well I'm standing here, but that is their intent as
[17:23] they've told me is to get all the infrastructure done for the whole
[17:26] subdivision this year if possible. There is a substantial residential
[17:30] component with that and then, you know, we do have the other ones that
[17:34] are kind of, haven't really submitted on the residential side like the
[17:39] But there's the inventory out there and then we continually been having meetings even since the holidays of other developers looking and a lot of it's what we got residential and commercial mix of both.
[17:55] I think any alternatives need to be explored so we can kind of continue to grow and don't, you know, stall out.
[18:03] And so if that has to play numbers with the paper game, essentially, I think we need to look at it on top of trying to get the EQ rules changed as well.
[18:15] The other thing is that the West Post, the Davis property, that's been in the city a long time, so all that business has been approved already, is my point.
[18:27] So there's a lot of business there. I guess this the the other business would be the development on check the jackrabbit that's commercial that
[18:35] Would and what's the time frame for those developments related to needing that service?
[18:41] Would you guess but yellow-iron jackrabbit crossing or hoping to start construction this year that would be extending the water and sewer means from
[18:50] No, it's roughly like Thunder Road
[18:52] South the Frank Road and into the development
[18:55] So, and then I've been in discussions with some engineers, I guess, on the design side
[19:02] of things for some commercial development out that project that they're already looking
[19:07] and wanting to get going as soon as they can.
[19:11] So, I would say this year we should be seeing some things on those projects, but, you know,
[19:16] or the next, you know, up through the next five years, I would say you would start
[19:20] to form, build out on those projects.
[19:25] Yes, Mr. Cardwell.
[19:26] Thank you.
[19:27] So a couple other comments.
[19:29] I think overall, as we've talked about this internally
[19:32] with staff, is like Tom mentioned,
[19:35] that we're leaning to suggesting a commercial first approach.
[19:40] And then talking about, from a multifamily perspective,
[19:43] probably being second, and then moving
[19:46] into lower density residential being third.
[19:49] However, there's a couple caveats that will probably present to council in a formal report that want to throw out here.
[19:56] One is that we know is that the school district is looking to add schools on the south side of town and looking to be annexed with that DNRC property that they've procured.
[20:07] I think it would be very wise for the city to make it in its policy that we will pre-allocate the capacity for the school district that would be needed over there for any schools that could come in.
[20:18] We also know that there's a Central Valley fire is looking at adding a station over there as well
[20:25] And so while everything is coming down and we could get into a point where we're talking very small edu
[20:32] Capacity limits. I think it staff would be recommending to council that we carve out
[20:37] Those government entities that we know we're coming in as well in whatever policy that we bring
[20:47] So if we had a first, second, third layout, like you just said, so the people in option
[20:53] number two with the more dense housing, how are they knowing whether or not they should
[20:59] keep plugging forward?
[21:01] What does that look like when somebody's in category one and they're not as far along
[21:07] as the people in category two?
[21:08] That's a great question and that's not an easy one to answer either because a lot of
[21:13] times we're going to have to go based upon what they're communicating with us because
[21:18] our first question is going to be, are you shovel-ready?
[21:22] Are you building this now?
[21:24] And we'll need to work with Rick on some of this language as possible where we can
[21:28] get commitments from them of if we're going to allocate this capacity to you, we need
[21:33] an understanding from you that you're actually going to construct this in this time frame.
[21:39] And that would then allow those individuals to know where they're at in the pecking order
[21:44] a lot better versus us just saying, well, we know we've got all these coming down the
[21:49] pike and we think you're going to fit in, but we don't know.
[21:54] I think overall with our until we can either get this is solved with DEQ, which we're
[21:59] making some progress on or the phase two of the plant is done we've got to kind
[22:05] of hold some of our developers feet to the fire of look we don't want we want
[22:09] you in Belgrade we're happy to have you but we need to maybe reduce how big your
[22:15] ask is up front of some of these large low density residential areas that are
[22:20] builds out of 20 years we may be going to them saying we want to see this
[22:26] phased in instead of asking for it all at once.
[22:30] So those are some of the ideas that staff has on the table.
[22:34] That would be new development with that,
[22:36] or is that going back and asking current developments?
[22:38] I do not believe it's on the table for us
[22:40] to change anybody that we've already given a letter to.
[22:43] Thank you, yeah, very good.
[22:44] Would there, with the scenario that you just used,
[22:47] would it be smart to have an allocate, deallocate?
[22:52] I don't know what the right word is.
[22:53] but if they don't meet the time frame that they're talking about.
[22:57] Because if I were one of them, I'd say, yes, I'm going to get it done by then.
[23:01] Right.
[23:01] Which is exactly why we've got to get our legal RIC involved to make sure that if we
[23:08] are going to hold them into that type of accountability,
[23:10] that there's not a risk that we're violating some MCA statute that we're not aware of at this time.
[23:16] Yeah.
[23:16] Because recent history, Ryan Glenn, all that infrastructure out there,
[23:20] than downturn or what, 2008 and sat for years.
[23:25] Right.
[23:25] It's a good place to teach your kids how to drive.
[23:27] Right.
[23:30] And as staff, I think it's very important
[23:33] that I want to put this on the record
[23:34] that we know that this is not an ideal situation.
[23:37] We want all of this growth to come in.
[23:39] We're excited about it.
[23:40] We're happy that we're known as a community that
[23:43] is open to development and not very difficult to work with.
[23:46] and we just ask for patience with our development community
[23:50] that as we work through some legislative hurdles on this
[23:56] that these are some of our best options that are available to us
[23:59] and if they want to join the fight with us in
[24:02] trying to get these rules changed we would be happy to
[24:06] work with them on it because ultimately as Tom just said we're not even close to
[24:10] 50% of the overall operating capacity of our new
[24:14] plant but yet on paper were over 95 to 96 percent allocated. So it's a big difference.
[24:24] It just seems silly. Every time I hear that my blood pressure goes up because it just doesn't make sense
[24:34] the paper deal. That's the rules today unless we get them changed. So good. Well thank you for
[24:41] answering the questions. I have a question. My hand's been up, but nobody looks. That's
[24:48] all right. Well, thank you, Chris. I always have something to say. My foremost thought
[24:59] always is illegal ramifications of changing the order. And I just am nervous about that.
[25:06] So, and I know you thought about it, but I need to hear out loud how, what's the approach?
[25:15] Oh, and if I may.
[25:18] Yes, please do.
[25:19] Well, and as Neil alluded to, that what we would do is take feedback,
[25:25] I guess that we've gathered here this evening and kind of draft something up
[25:28] and then present that to council at a future meeting, probably relatively soon,
[25:32] but at least give you an opportunity to see what the actual proposal is and then to discuss
[25:39] and consider that and if that's a direction that you would like to go.
[25:43] Chris, I have a question of you.
[25:45] Are you thinking that some of this might seem discriminatory?
[25:50] Is that your thought or when we allocate to one to the other?
[25:56] Yeah, I didn't think discriminatory, but I just want to know how we're going to go over that
[26:06] line and what ramifications have you thought that through, or do you expect any?
[26:12] I'm just nervous about the very thought of those who were in line for a while.
[26:22] And I see where we're going and I'm all on board with that.
[26:25] I just want to make sure that I'm comfortable doing this
[26:31] if there's a 90, 80% chance of no legal ramifications
[26:40] then I'm good with it.
[26:41] But if you figure out there's going to be
[26:44] everything held up for a long time,
[26:46] And I'm sure you have the answers to that, but I'm just nervous.
[26:54] Thank you, Chris.
[26:56] City Manager Cardwell has some thoughts he wants to share or our attorney.
[27:01] Well, I don't.
[27:04] I obviously want an opportunity to review any policy that comes up.
[27:09] And Chris, I agree with you.
[27:16] No one has a crystal ball here, I guess that's my first thought here, and we certainly don't
[27:24] want to prevent a developer from going ahead with the development, but there's a reality
[27:32] of how much capacity we're going to be able to use.
[27:36] all of the annexation service plans that were adopted for all of the annexations
[27:45] talk about limited capacity and you know they they may not we may not have the
[27:51] capacity for them to develop when they want to develop so I everyone's been on
[27:57] notice I think frankly I think everybody's a little bit surprised at
[28:04] this last you know the recent upgrade for the water facility isn't enough to you
[28:13] know do everything to satisfy growth further into the future and but that's
[28:19] just the reality of it so we're doing everything we can and but anyway that's
[28:26] kind of a long answer but we'll look at it and and certainly you know I'm
[28:31] I'm certainly going to do everything I can to protect the interests of the city.
[28:37] Mr. Cardwell, do you have any other words?
[28:41] What our city attorney said.
[28:44] Go ahead, Chris. Anything else?
[28:48] No, just a request to the city manager to upgrade the sound system on this deal.
[28:55] I think Jim will agree. We get about aptly said.
[28:58] We've got a Amazon cable ordered that will be ready for next meeting.
[29:07] Sweet. Thank you.
[29:10] Any other questions
[29:15] of Mr. Eastwood?
[29:18] Or if you have some other words, go ahead.
[29:20] Well, the only other thing I would add is that there's anything,
[29:24] other alternatives I guess the council would have that they would like us to consider other than what we have presented.
[29:30] And then we can certainly take that direction and incorporate it just as a council member
[29:36] of Manukuchi mentioned, you know, some of these other things you need to consider when you're
[29:39] putting this policy together.
[29:41] But if there's a different allocation method you'd like us to look at or that help represents
[29:47] the people that you represent, we'll certainly take that into consideration as we put something
[29:52] together.
[29:54] What I would like to see is whatever program we come up with, if it's as you've spoken
[30:00] Tonight, commercial first, and then if we could have some, rather than just that, who fits into
[30:06] each of those that we know about today? So we can maybe see who gets left out. That will
[30:13] tell us that. Okay, so I'd like to see who the commercials are that would use what we
[30:20] think and then multi and then single family. That may be subdivisions, that may be whatever
[30:27] it is. But I want to know who's in each bucket. It would be useful for me.
[30:34] One thing it might be good to is that if we get everything on our wish list from
[30:40] the DEQ for changes, how would that impact this as well? It goes away.
[30:46] Seamless transition. Well, I still think you're going to have a pecking order,
[30:50] right? Because you're still going to probably end up using building permits
[30:53] and allocation and combination to then define resources
[30:58] and what triggers an upgrade.
[31:00] Yeah.
[31:01] We could certainly write that in to the policy so that we wouldn't have
[31:06] to necessarily come back and do another one,
[31:08] because that's a relatively simple ask, very easy method for us.
[31:13] If DEQ grants us what we're looking for,
[31:16] we would move to a CO-based allocation level
[31:19] that it is strictly first-come, first-serve at the moment that you are
[31:24] granted the CO and then it becomes the city's responsibility to monitor the
[31:29] pace of that growth and the actual capacity to know when we need to be
[31:34] adding that additional capacity. So it would be a very simple transition once
[31:41] that hopefully takes place and we could definitely write that into it.
[31:47] Great.
[31:50] I guess that's it. Thank you, Mr. Eastwood.
[31:52] Thank you for your time.
[31:53] I'd ask, because I haven't yet, if there's any public comment concerning this discussion.
[31:58] Is there any public comment?
[32:01] Is there any public comment?
[32:04] If you think of some later, please contact the city manager or any staff member you know,
[32:12] and they can relay it to the city manager.
[32:14] So,
[32:17] don't think we need any motion on this.
[32:20] Just think what my understanding is the staff is going to come back with a written recommendation based on what they heard tonight and then we'll talk about it more.
[32:31] Yes.
[32:31] Good.
[32:32] All right.
[32:33] Let's see.
[32:34] Next is
[32:38] discuss upcoming special meeting regarding parks, trails and recreation district.
[32:44] Mr. Cardwell.
[32:45] Well, thank you Mayor and Council. So this item is to draw attention to the fact that
[32:51] I have called a special meeting of the City Council on Thursday, January 26th at 7 p.m.
[32:58] that will be held in the council chambers. The items on that meeting will be pertaining
[33:04] to the adoption of a resolution to put on the ballot on May 2nd a vote by the people
[33:12] for the creation of the Belgrade Regional Parks, Trails and Recreation District and
[33:17] an associated bond of in the amount of $49 million to construct the Belgrade Aquatics
[33:24] and Recreation Center.
[33:27] And the reason for the special meeting is that the County Commission will be holding
[33:32] their meeting on the adjoining resolution on the 24th at 9 a.m. and for one very
[33:39] important note is that will be in the Ag extension building, which is located at 903 North Black
[33:45] Avenue and will not be in the standard County Commission room due to some renovations that
[33:51] they are having in there at this time. So the public that wishes to comment, it's a pretty
[33:57] big change, so we wanted to draw attention to that. We'll be presenting the final
[34:03] language that is on that resolution that Dan Simmons, our bond attorney from Dorsey
[34:07] Whitney has been putting together for us. The county's reviewed it and looked over it and we've
[34:13] nailed down all the little final tweaks to it. The election office has been involved as well
[34:19] because we have to get this to them by February 6 in order to make it on the ballot. And so all
[34:25] of the timelines and nuances of this are all coming together and we're really excited to
[34:31] see this. So look forward to hopefully the council being able to attend, have a
[34:38] quorum and be able to take a vote on this to see if that's something the
[34:42] council wants to officially put on the ballot. And I will be presenting at the
[34:47] County Commission meeting the city's request to have this put on the ballot.
[34:52] But I'm happy to answer any questions you may have or they could be saved
[34:56] until the 26th as well I
[35:04] don't it appears there's no comments by council I
[35:07] assume everybody will be there will those that can't attend will a zoom like
[35:16] tonight we'll have a zoom link available very good okay super all right nothing
[35:22] there the next item is reports I asked mr. Cardwell if you are or if I should
[35:28] about yesterday's. I think you should go for it Mayor. Thank you. Yesterday City
[35:36] Manager Cardwell and Deputy Mayor Mies and I drove to Helena to give public
[35:42] testimony against Senate Bill 142. This was a bill that was set to
[35:48] change impact fees. There was a gentleman and he brought three of his
[35:55] to his buddies to make their case for changing as they had some property in Whitefish and
[36:06] were overcharged impact fees.
[36:09] Once that was known to the city, I'm not sure how the city found out, but once it was discovered
[36:14] the city refunded the money.
[36:17] But these guys still aren't happy.
[36:19] So they have this bill that would, what it would do is it would take impact fees
[36:24] that cities would have to report to the Department of Commerce. Cities today get five percent
[36:30] of the impact fees for administration. They wanted 20 percent of that to go to the Department
[36:36] of Commerce to do what they had to do. And it had some other things that weren't good,
[36:43] some other reporting. And I think they wanted time restriction, a time restriction. So
[36:51] anyway or more red tape and certainly the governor is trying to get do red tape
[36:58] productions we didn't get to say that but so then who spoke there were those
[37:03] gentlemen there were three people at three or four people that spoke in
[37:06] favor of that bill and then the rest of us the city of Belgrade city of White
[37:12] Fish cities of Bozeman and Missoula and a city of Billings all had
[37:18] representation and butte and butte thank you I forgot about butte and butte so they
[37:25] all spoke against the Senate bill 142 and after it was all over the senators
[37:36] indicate that they took that public comment and they'll decide on it later
[37:40] maybe this Friday maybe next week but what did happen after that can I
[37:49] don't have to. You do now, Mayor. I do now.
[37:57] There's a potential that the governor's office
[38:04] has an opinion and they may share it with the committee that we've learned that. So we'll
[38:11] We'll see how that plays out.
[38:13] Wow.
[38:14] Very good.
[38:14] Very well done.
[38:16] Oh, gosh.
[38:18] That's why you brought me along, keeping it in.
[38:20] Thank you.
[38:21] Keeping it in.
[38:21] Even cute.
[38:22] Yes, that's right.
[38:24] Keeping it above the gym.
[38:24] So we'll see how that transpires.
[38:27] There will be other bills that are coming up that we probably will make more trips to
[38:34] Helena and we'll keep you informed on those as they happen.
[38:40] So that's all I have.
[38:41] I'd call on our city attorney.
[38:43] I don't have anything.
[38:44] I'd call on our city manager, Mr. Cardwell.
[38:46] Thank you, Mayor, for giving me a heart attack there.
[38:50] Always keeping me on my toes.
[38:52] That's right.
[38:52] That's right.
[38:53] But I did ask.
[38:57] You know, that was a great trip and it was really good to see a lot of the cities joining together.
[39:03] And I want to thank Kelly Lynch, the director for the Montana League of Cities and Towns,
[39:08] who does an excellent job and their staff
[39:10] of keeping us informed of what's coming down
[39:13] and letting us know things that we should be aware of
[39:16] and helping coordinate the efforts
[39:18] and making sure that our voices are heard on Helena
[39:22] as all these important things are decided.
[39:24] There is one other, it's really two sets of bills.
[39:28] I don't have the numbers in front of me,
[39:30] but I'll be happy to email those to council.
[39:32] There's a House version and a Senate version
[39:35] that would drastically change the way
[39:38] that the mill levy structures work for municipalities and that it removes all
[39:44] abilities of municipalities to ask for permanent mill levies and would also set
[39:50] a requirement that at least 50% of the electorate that are the registered
[39:57] voters have to participate in the election before a mill levy vote would
[40:02] be considered valid and then also reduce the length of any mill levy to a maximum of six
[40:10] years. There are many reasons why that would be detrimental to a city to do. The majority
[40:18] of those revolve around that, and we're doing some internal studies on this and checking
[40:23] on it, but the early cursory look is that there are very, very few, if not any,
[40:30] any mill levy elections that ever have achieved that 50% of registered voter participation
[40:36] in that we're really taking it from the stance of that it's not creating a majority rule
[40:44] situation, it's creating a minority control type situation if you were to change the
[40:49] rules in that aspect.
[40:52] And then on top of it, the removal of a permanent structure, on top of the fact that
[40:59] that you have that now 50% rule could mean like Belgrade, for example, why we would be
[41:06] very opposed to this is something that we've been discussing about.
[41:12] Our public safety mill levy is a permanent mill levy that was established many, many
[41:16] years ago and the current rules and regulations require that we are only allowed to increase
[41:23] our revenue by one half the rate of inflation
[41:28] over a three year rolling average.
[41:31] That's a large mouthful to say
[41:33] that we are governmently bound, if you will,
[41:36] to become extremely more efficient every single year
[41:41] because we cannot grow at the rate of inflation.
[41:44] So we're always gonna be behind from that aspect.
[41:48] And so when you have a permanent mill levy
[41:50] that may be a decade old,
[41:52] much like our library mill levy is approaching that same time, time lane there.
[41:57] You're eventually, the rate of inflation is outpacing your revenue growth,
[42:03] and that amount of revenue that you're receiving is becoming less and less effective every year.
[42:09] You combine that with, if the new rules took place,
[42:13] and we wish to go out to the community to express that, hey, we feel that we're doing a good job,
[42:19] but we could use your support in some additional services.
[42:22] And the community backed us and supported it.
[42:25] Then that levy would convert from a permanent male levy
[42:30] to the six-year male levy.
[42:32] And even assuming we got 50% of the participation
[42:36] to establish that, then six years further down the road,
[42:40] we could end up in a situation where we only got 49%
[42:44] to the people voting on it.
[42:46] And then that levy falls off.
[42:48] And that is very, very difficult as a, frankly, as an organization and as a corporation, which
[42:57] were a municipal corporation, to budget and plan and anticipate your ability to sustain
[43:05] services when you cannot guarantee the revenues.
[43:08] So there are, where the league and other cities are actively working with the
[43:14] legislatures to draw attention to some of these issues that are in that bill and
[43:19] the effects that it would have on us and hopefully we'll be able to draw some
[43:23] attention to that and if this council or anybody wishes to participate in that
[43:28] let me know and when we get the hearing dates and if we're asked to
[43:31] participate we should probably make another trip up to the Hill to discuss
[43:36] that one. I don't have any other for tonight.
[43:40] Very good. Thank you, Mr. Cardwell. We'll move to FYI. We'll start with Council Member
[43:48] Madimo under FYI. I don't think I have anything. I was excited to see that we are going to have
[43:56] an ice cream place in Belgrade this summer. Okay. Very good. That's great. Over by
[44:02] Lewis and Clark Park. It'll be a trailer and they all have genuine ice cream.
[44:09] I'm
[44:10] That's cute.
[44:11] Council Member Menekuchi.
[44:16] There is no snow in Pennsylvania, and I'm thankful.
[44:20] Okay. Thank you.
[44:22] Council Member Doyle.
[44:26] I don't have anything to add tonight.
[44:27] All right. Thank you.
[44:30] Council Member...
[44:34] Sorry, but there you go.
[44:35] I'm getting old. I'm getting old.
[44:38] I got just a couple of quick items.
[44:41] I did attend the Central Valley Fire District Board meeting
[44:45] meeting on January 10th. It was a pretty quick meeting. Talked a little bit about the legislative
[44:52] activities, impact. These was one of them. Also, I wanted to point out a representative
[44:58] from the union and the chief.
[45:00] Talked about they have an increased volunteer participation recently and the culture is good
[45:07] over there where the volunteers are wanting to come in and participate more. So that was
[45:13] a refreshing update to hear, which is good. So things are improving on that front.
[45:29] And
[45:30] Living quarters or residential. So there was a couple people that were asking questions about that and the chief did a real
[45:36] Nice job
[45:38] Informing them what what they can expect for service on that end of the district as well
[45:43] So and then pulling resources back to the Belgrade proper and down four corners is is the goal of that change
[45:53] Other than that that was about it. And then one other thing. I don't know
[45:56] Council Member Doyle, can you hear me by chance?
[46:01] Yes.
[46:02] Would you be available to sit in for me
[46:05] on the February 14th Fire Board meeting at 5.30?
[46:16] Yes.
[46:17] Okay, great.
[46:18] Thank you.
[46:20] Thank you.
[46:22] Council Member Meese.
[46:24] Last week we have the PCC,
[46:28] the Belgrade-Bosman-Gallatin County
[46:31] Planning Coordination Committee meeting.
[46:35] Reappointed myself as Chair in Sean O'Callaghan,
[46:38] the Gallin County Planning Director as Co-Chair.
[46:43] Jennifer Boyer, who's been our liaison,
[46:48] I don't know exactly, kind of streamlining our meetings now
[46:51] with her being elected to her position on the county.
[46:55] She's actually going to take Zach's spot on the BCC
[46:58] board as the county representative to help, I think, with some of the continuity there.
[47:05] So I think some good things are happening.
[47:07] We talked a little bit about the MPO, you know, really in kind of the beginning stages.
[47:13] And I'm sure Neil will probably have some more updates in the next few weeks as those
[47:18] discussions keep on going between what the Census Bureau map comes out as and with
[47:25] with the county and city of Bozeman and city of Belgrade.
[47:30] We did talk about doing some planning board roundtables
[47:34] like we had done last year where we also included,
[47:38] I think three forks participated,
[47:41] West Yellowstone, maybe even Big Sky, I think.
[47:44] So doing another one of those roundtable meetings
[47:48] with a lot of the different jurisdictions
[47:50] just to talk through issues that they see
[47:54] and and I think it was helpful the last time and another one was the school
[48:00] roundtable getting schools together to kind of talk about you know what future
[48:06] planning and what their growth is looking like as well so a little bit
[48:11] happening on the PCC so I think that's all I had. Very good thank you.
[48:17] Councilmember Sellers. Yes I the library board meets next week but I will not
[48:24] be there sad to say I've chosen to step down from the council and tonight is my
[48:29] last night I want to thank everyone who helped me learn what to do and how to do
[48:32] it Jason you get massive kudos for answering probably 700,000 questions
[48:37] in a year and Gail I just want to thank you for bringing me along on the board
[48:40] I enjoyed every minute of it and to everyone who works in the city I want
[48:44] to thank you for all you do it's been really wonderful to to see that at a
[48:48] more close level than I would as just a citizen I'm amazed and so impressed
[48:54] with all that you do to make this city work and we are really, really lucky to have you.
[48:58] I say that as a constituent and a voter from here on out. I appreciate every single thing that everyone of you does. Thank you.
[49:05] Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Sellers, for your service that you have put forth.
[49:12] You've been a dedicated Council Member by immersing yourself in the issues and learning the issues.
[49:18] And we certainly appreciate that and hate to see you go, but understand that our jobs
[49:24] are more important than other things.
[49:29] So we appreciate your time and wish you the best.
[49:32] Thank you.
[49:35] And let's see, related to that, I guess I should talk about that I think the city
[49:40] We will look to appoint someone for Martha's spot and we would take applications for those
[49:49] that live in that district and that is, what ward is that?
[49:53] 3.
[49:53] 3, Ward 3 and that's where you and Jim serve, is that correct?
[49:58] If anybody's interested you can look, I think that's on our website, the wards, you can
[50:02] see what Ward 3 covers and we just submit, if you're interested, please correspond
[50:08] with myself and Mr. Cardwell, and we'll try to get that position filled.
[50:14] So, very good. Anything else for the good of the order?
[50:17] Move to adjourn.
[50:19] Second.
[50:20] Second. We're adjourned.
[50:24] Jim Doyle.
[50:26] I have that exact same clock that my husband gave to me 50 years ago.