Loading...
1. Council Minutes - Regular Meeting - August 5, 2013A REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00 P.M., MONDAY, AUGUST 5,2013, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT KARI GABRIEL PRESIDED. COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, PHIL GUIFFRIDA, BOB HAFFERMAN, RANDY KENYON, WAYNE SAVERUD, AND JEFF ZAUNER WERE PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER TIM KLUESNER AND MAYOR TAMMI FISHER WERE ABSENT. Also present: City Manager Doug Russell, City Attorney Charles Harball, City Clerk Theresa White, Police Chief Roger Nasset, Parks Director Mike Baker, Public Works Director Susie Turner, and Deputy City Clerk Judi Funk. President Gabriel called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. A. AGENDA APPROVAL Guiffrida moved to approve the Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Kluesner and Mayor Fisher absent. B. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL Council Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 15, 2013 2. Award Bid — Highway 93 Bike/Pedestrian Path — Phase I Bids for this project were received from LHC and Sandon Construction. Staff recommended the bid be awarded to LHC, Inc. in the amount of $82,964.53. Saverud moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Kluesner and Mayor Fisher absent. 1] N Lwy-111% 104 Fred Hammel, 505 7th Avenue West, remarked he attended a recent Salish-Kootenai water compact meeting and wondered why no one from the city was there. He said if the tribe wins their lawsuit they will control all of the water rights in Northwest Montana. Eugene Thomas, 733 3rd Avenue East, stated he is still opposed to the city taking over electrical inspections and advised the city to talk to electrical contractors. Richard Frisk, State of Montana licensed Master Electrician, agreed with Thomas, adding the state has highly trained inspectors and there is no reason to "fix what isn't broke". Kalispell City Council Minutes August 5, 2013 Page 1 Jerry Begg, 220 Woodland Avenue, stated he needs clarification from council regarding his building issues at 305 Second Avenue West and asked for the subject to be placed on an Agenda. D. PUBLIC HEARING — RATES/ASSESSMENTS — SPECIAL FUNDS President Gabriel opened the public hearing and asked for comments concerning proposed increases to the Light Maintenance, Street Maintenance, and Urban Forestry assessments, along with the Solid Waste fee for commercial customers. Josh Brown, 55 West Valley Drive, Evergreen Disposal District Manager, asked for clarification on the solid waste fee. Turner answered the fee is an annual charge. Fred Hammel, 505 nth Avenue West, stated the city wants more money for urban forestry to take care of the Dutch Elm trees, but he thinks the box elders should be removed also. Lynn Stanley, 838 2nd Avenue East, said we need trees for green space and cooling and she is willing to accept a tax increase for the urban forestry program. President Gabriel closed the public hearing. (Written comments received prior to the public hearing are attached hereto and made a part of the official record) DIJJ�lq lJJ l� Jill, 'llIII i J: J� E/I. RESOLUTION 5632 — UTILITIES AGREEMENT — THREE MILE DRIVE This agreement between the City of Kalispell and the Montana Department of Transportation outlines responsibilities for the relocation of utilities on Three Mile Drive as part of the Kalispell Bypass Project. Turner gave a report and answered questions. Public Comment None. Kenyon moved Resolution 5632, a resolution authorizing the City Manager of Kalispell to execute Utilities Agreement No. NH 15(100) for Kalispell Bypass Project (KBP), Three Mile Drive, Federal Aid Project No. NH -MT 15(111), with the State of Montana, acting by and through the Department of Transportation. The motion was seconded. Council Discussion None. Kalispell City Council Minutes August 5, 2013 Page 2 The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Kluesner and Mayor Fisher absent. E/2. RESOLUTION 5633 — CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING — FY2013 BUDGET AMENDMENT The purchase earlier this year of a permanent easement on the Kidsports property requires a budget amendment for fiscal year 2013. This resolution schedules a public hearing on the proposed amendment for August 19. Russell gave a report and answered questions. Public Comment Atkinson moved Resolution 5633, a resolution calling for a public hearing to amend the annual appropriations of the City of Kalispell, Montana, as set forth in the 2012-2013 budget adopted by the city council. The motion was seconded. Council Discussion None. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Kluesner and Mayor Fisher absent. F. MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER REPORTS (No Action) Russell informed council the August 12 work session will review the Extension of Services policy and definitions, and the deer statue will be installed at the intersection of Idaho and Highway 93 this Friday at 11:00 a.m. Hafferman said he would appreciate it if the council would take the time to read his comments on the Extension of Services definitions prior to the work session. The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Theresa White City Clerk Kalispell City Council Minutes August 5, 2013 Page 3 Theresa White From: Jon Battle Donbattle463@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 8:52 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Proposed Urban Forestry District Assessments I am against the proposed assessment rate increase for the following reasons; 1. The current property assessment is based upon unrealistic property values therefore we are all paying more in property taxes. We cannot sell our homes for the assessed property value. 2. I would recommend cutting down all elms and replanting with a native species which will not require extra dollars to support in future years. 3. We have no elms in our neighborhood so where is the benefit of my dollars spent in increased property taxes. 4. There is no detail in the received letter of total dollars expected and how they will be spent. 5. The letter talks about an annual increase of $8.63 for the next five years then something else for the next ? years. Once a tax is in place it will never go away. I would like to attend the public hearing but I am working out of town as many in the valley have to do in order to make a living. Thank you, Jon Battle 16J 'Z-1b ?y/+US P67.L_- July 26, 2013 City Council Members City of Kalispell PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 RE: Public Hearing concerning Urban Forestry Maintenance District Dear Council Members: We are pleased to see that the Council has addressed the ongoing problem of the dead and dying trees in the City, and we are in favor of the increase proposed to allow for the care of one of our City's important resources. The funds requested in this proposal seem slight in relation to the benefits, both immediate and long term. The trees are important to the City of Kalispell and need to be cared for in a professional manner. There are presently many dead and dying trees along the boulevards which not only look unsightly, but are also a hazard, especially during windstorms. Those trees which cannot be saved should be removed and replaced with other varieties. Those trees which can be saved should be treated and/or pruned. We own several properties in the City and want to be sure our City's trees are cared for in the most professional means possible, to keep our property values up and for the beauty they provide, as well as the environmental advantages they provide, so we encourage your support of this proposal. Best regards, 4� Oesof d�Fay Wolf 615 7 ' . ast Kalispell, MT 59901 Woodland Floral, LLC Woodland Floral and Gifts Penny Kiger, President 647 e Ave. East Kalispell, MT 59901 July 26, 2013 City Council Members City of Kalispell PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 RE: Public Hearing concerning Urban Forestry Maintenance District Dear Council Members: 406-755-5959 800-755-5960 Fax 406-755-5584 I was pleased to see that the Council has addressed the ongoing problem of the dead and dying trees in the City. I am in favor of the increase proposed to allow for the care of one of our City's important resources. As any arborist would tell us, each tree is extremely valuable both for its beauty and for the environmental advantages it provides. The trees are an important part of the City of Kalispell and as such, need to be cared for in a professional manner. There are presently many dead and dying trees along the boulevards which not only look unsightly, but are also a hazard, especially during windstorms. Those trees which cannot be saved should be removed and replaced with other varieties. Those trees which can be saved should be treated and/or pruned. Obviously, this can only be accomplished with planning, and because it is labor intensive, will require more funds. The funds requested in this proposal seem slight in relation to the benefits, immediate and long term. Again, as both a business owner and a property owner, I am weighing in as being in favor of this proposal. Best regards, Penny Kiger ' July 26, 2013 City Council Members City of Kalispell PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 RE: Public Hearing concerning Urban Forestry Maintenance District Dear Council Members: We, the undersigned siblings, co-own property within the City of Kalispell and want to express our pleasure that the City is addressing the problem of dead and dying trees within the City. The funds requested in this proposal seem slight in relation to the benefits, both immediate and long term. The trees are important to the City of Kalispell and need to be cared for in a professional manner. There are presently many dead and dying trees along the boulevards which not only look unsightly, but are also a hazard, especially during windstorms. Those trees which cannot be saved should be removed and replaced with other varieties. Those trees which can be saved should be treated and/or pruned. We want to be sure our City's trees are cared for in the most professional means possible, to keep our property values up and for the beauty they provide, as well as the environmental advantages they provide, so we encourage your support of this proposal. Best regards, Fay Wolf 615 7`h St. Kalispell, MT 59901 Jan Turner 3427 Curlew St. Helena, MT 59602 u Sei 751 Sun Acres Road Zillah, WA 98953 van Turner 3320 Swan Highway Bigfork, MT 59911 Jan %u ; 359 . Chase Sierra Vista, AZ 85635 Theresa White From: Patty [mtme@bresnan.net] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 11:10 AM To: Theresa White Subject: FOR COUNCIL MEMBER PHIL GUIFFRIDA - FOR AUGUST 5, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING I have been going to write in before but di not want to bother the Council, but when I read about this special tax assessment I thought now I have to. SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENTS I am but one person and normally one person doesn't have much say in things. You need a lot of "one persons" to usually accomplish something. I feel the need to speak to the issue of the City Manager wanting to boost special tax assessments. CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO PROPERTY OWNERS The Daily Internet published a story on July 10 entitled KALISPELL READY TO BOOST SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENTS. The time has come where our Council Members who were elected by the people to work for them actually do just that. This issue presents an excellent opportunity for our elected Council Members to "just say no" to the "wants" of the Mayor and/or the City Manager. This Council needs to put its collective foot down and stand up for the people that elected them. It's always spend, spend, spend. When does it stop? The City Council members work for the people who elected them and right now this Council need to tell the City that the time has come that the City learn to live within their budget like every one else has to do and if they can't afford something, then they do without. The need money to buy this or that or to fix something, or to replace money their "borrowed" from other accounts and now they have no money to replace what they "borrowed" so they want the taxpayers to just give them money. Well who do the taxpayers turn around get get money from to replace the money we are forced to give the City every time they need some more? There is no one lower that the taxpayer on the ladder. I like most all common taxpayer just can no longer afford to keep bailing the city out. We all have to live within our budgets and we are running out of money ourselves. This latest tax assessment should not be approved and this Council needs to show some respect for "we, the people". You know, every time the Council approves some spending the City wants, you are taking that much more money from the people, money that the people could put into the economy here. There was an excellent letter to the editor a couple days ago on this very subject you are going to vote on tonight. If the Council has not read that letter, they would do well to before the meeting. As I said above the "people", the property owners, are at the bottom of the totem pole. There are no others below them to recoup money they have to keep paying out. (I need a new driveway put in, I need to get my roof fixed, I need to get a new fence, I need a window fixed, I need my vehicle repaired, I need new tires, all before the coming Winter, but I don't have enough money in my budget to pay for this as it is more than what my budget will allow me to do. If I ask the City to give me money to get these things done, they would laugh till the cows come home, yet they need money for something they can't pay for and want me to give it to them, no questions asked, and will I get it back if I give it to them? Government on the other hand hasn't been able to live within their means, they always want more and more and more. What good is having a budget? Everyone has a budget and they strive very hard to live within it while yet trying to provide for their families. We don't have a "well" we can keep dipping into when we want money for this and for that. Now once again the City finds themselves wanting more money because they will "be in some difficulty with special assessment funds" so they want the City Council to tell them ok, sure, go ahead, and the City Council will be puppets yet again and say yes, take some more money from the people who are already struggling to make ends meet. This just has GOT to stop! Us people down here on the bottom of the ladder just simply do not have money to keep giving the City every time it wants something. I want a lot of things, too, but I don't go around my neighborhood asking people for money so I can buy something. I tell myself no if I cannot manage it without going out of my budget. Not long ago I needed a new furnace. If I would have called the City and asked them to buy me a new furnace, they would have said what are you crazy? We don't have any money to give you! Years back I started a household maintenance budget for "big ticket" items and each pay day x amount of dollars go into it. This account would cover new necessity items, like a water heater, furnace, air conditioner, roof. When the time came for a new furnace the funds were there. I did not say "well let's see who can I get to pay for my furnace. Point being you live within your budget, you adjust your budget from time to time to make it work. You don't say well I am going to run out of money in my budget because I didn't plan on this or that so I'll just go to my neighbors and tell them they are going to have to give me money so I can buy something I need because I screwed up and did not budget for this. The City seems to have known this budget account they want money for was going to eventually run dry, but did they do anything about it and adjust their budget over the years to accommodate it? The story in the paper says "Kalispell charges special assessment property taxes each year for its street maintenance, light maintenance an urban forestry operations. Those are in addition to its general fund, health insurance, and general obligation bond property tax levies. The last rate increase for light maintenance operations was in 2003. Since then electricity, labor* and equipment costs have continued to grow. So has the number of street lights Kalispell must keep lit and repaired. 'Next fiscal year we will start going into the hole' Public Works Director said about the fun's shrinking cash balance. "With that, we thought it was important to bring it forward to get an assessment increase.' ". Then the story went on to say "A series of 15 percent and 10 percent rate increases over the next five years would gradually boost the fun's revenues by about $160,000 a year." And it said that would keep the maintenance operations solvent through at least 2023. The thing that stuck out here in addition to the budget people not realizing this way back when, the word LABOR stuck out like a soar thumb. City employees are paid a salary to work for the City 8 hours a day. What is this LABOR cost for? The City is paying an employee 8 hours pay PLUS labor cost to repair something? Why? The City prepares a budget annually and the person that is charged with this job did not see that this fund was shrinking annually and nothing was being put into it annually to keep it from shrinking each year to where now it is to the point where its in trouble? Bottom line... somebody goofed. So now the City wants "we, the people" to fund their goof. It is time for the City Council to take a slogan from Nike and do what they tells kids to do "JUST SAY NO". Tell the City budget people NO. This fund should have been growing on its own through proper management of it over many years. Just a few weeks ago when our water bill arrived, we were just TOLD that rates were going up. Who gave the ok for that? Why are the water rates going up? And the date they were going up was July 1. How convenient. Right when summer really sets in and homeowners use more water. That's the time to do a rate increase. If they must increase the rates, why not wait until the growing season is over and water usage is cut back and the people can put that high water usage money back into their pockets to help pay other things down. Just like the price of gasoline. As soon as the tourist season begins, raise those gas prices, and lower them when the season ends. I have a water budget and I keep putting into it half of what I pay each month during the high usage months all year long so by the time I get around to the summer months again that fund has not run low and I don't have to take money from something else. I realize these are little peanuts in comparison to the City's budget but the principal should be the same. There should be ways to off set increases within. DO THE RIGHT THING Do not approve this increase. Property owners just cannot afford to carry the City time and time again. They have GOT to learn to live within their budget. The City needs to cut back on employees. Public Works employees need to be cross trained so they can fill in in other jobs when someone is gone, the number of city vehicles could be reduced. Departments should share vehicles. Set up a schedule. Building Inspectors could use City vehicles from 1 p/m to 5 p/m while Parks employees could use the City vehicles from 8 a/m till noon. City vehicles would not be running between Noon and 1, that would save gas and vehicle wear and tear for 1 hour a day, 5 days a week, 20 days a month. That savings adds up quickly. Public Works could also share vehicles, one Division in the am hours and another Division in the pm hours. The number of employees on a job should be cut back. Just the other day I went by a park and there was one guy mowing, one guy trimming, and three guys doing nothing but standing around. 2 of them each had a city vehicle. More wasted money. The budget people need to start moving funds around to make sure that each expenditure account has sufficient funds in it annually to hold its own. Cut out all this frivolous spending and keep the money you have. Just like the guy who wrote the letter to the editor said about the lighting downtown. Seems I read not long ago where the City was going to spend a bunch of money on something that was totally not necessary and they were quick to say they had the money, their general fund had been built back up, and they were in pretty good shape again. Now suddenly here comes a special tax assessment increase because the City has no money. Huh?. I would be interested to know how many contracts the City has out with places that they pay to do work for them, and out of the total number of contracts let, how much of that work could city employees be doing. Employees are hired to work 8 hours a day and the duties of each job is subject to change as the need arises. One may have more work to do at times than he would at other times but he is hired by the City to work 8 hours a day for them doing whatever job needs to be done. Who cares what job you have to do I your 8 hours. If he has to drive a garbage truck as a relief driver during the summer months when vacations are usually taken, then he drives a garbage truck. If he has to mow parks one day, he mows parks. Start saving money and live within the budget you have, stop asking the people for money they don't have. This special tax assessment is not something that the city should do. You need to live within your budget no matter what Department you are in. Just say NO on this one an send a big message to the city budget people that they are not going tokeep taking money from the people. People don't have it. The City Council bvapproving things like this is causing people to leave Kalispell and if you ask these leaving people why they are leaving 8 out of 10 will tell you they cannot afford iolive here any more. Very few leave because ofjob transfers. Every time some one leaves Kalispell, the rest of '' we, the people" here have Lostep upand pay for those vvalose. The City Council can start making ohuge difference by saying NO to spending that is outside of the budget unless the finance people can find a way to replace it without taking it from the people. Does each department have to turn in an expenditure report each month to the Council so you can see all year long where they are spending their budgeted money? Then when Budget times rolls around Council can look at these year long spending report and quickly see where they have gone over their budget and then find out why? Isn't it Department heads that must approve their Department's spending or do employees just buy what they think they need and turn in a receipt? Ahuge Department expense iaoffice supplies. Wouldn't itbeinteresting tosee how much each Department uses? We once had an efficiency expert in a place where I worked long time ago and we were issued off ice supplies touse inour job. If we kept going to Supply for more pens they wanted to know how we could be using so many pens. We'd say they just disappear or people just walk off with them. VVowere told to find away tostop that from happening. They didn't say ''here'have some more pgns''. | got some string from home and brought ittowork and tied three pens to the strings in places where people had a need to use a pen and tied the other ends to something permanent. Maybe the City ought to have an efficiency expert go through the departments and find all the ways the City is wasting money instead of just saying yes all the time. Do not approve any increase in spending. Get an efficiency expert inand get ahandle onCity spending. Get elocal efficiency expert, not spend S2U'OUUfor anoutsider. Listen to Council Member Hafferman. Council elections are coming up. What a perfect time to start doing something about how the city spends its money and put astop toburdening "vve'the peop|e^ For lack ofabetter term, the City Council ianothing more than o"Yes Man" for the City. And this needs tochange, starting tonight. | don't know when the budget gets approved for the next year but this Council needs to sit down and find out where budget increases were inserted and then go to the Departments that would be getting increases and find out WHY the need for increases. Oriaitjust easier tosay OK. There was mention inthis assessment story inthe paper that made nosense tome. The cost ofremoving dead tree. | fail tosee why there iasuch acost toremove these trees. Anmentioned above each employee ishired for 8hours work a day. You cross train these people that work in the field so more and more are able to do other jobs. |tdoesn't matter K they are cutting down dead trees orpainting lines onpavement. You get paid for 8hours work. |aanew wood chipper needed? Is the ones the City has totally done for and no longer can be fixed or can the vehicle maintenance people fix it for them? City would only need tobuy parts. There ianolabor charge. Alot ofprivate businesses are not hiring full time workers because the cost ofhealth insurance inover the moon. Perhaps the city needs toeliminate full time employees other than department heads and their hours of work be set so that each day of the week has a full compliment of workers. You can't just work everyone 4days aweek tnkeep under the 4Ohours a week needed Loqualify for health insurance. The full time workers would become part time workers, still working 8 hours a day but 32 hours a week instead of 40. You'd still have workers 5 days a week because some employees would work Monday -Thursday and others would work Tuesday thruFridays. How much money would besaved ininsurance costs? All that money could beput into the various budgetary accounts the first year and then keep it level and maintained. Thus nospecial tax assessments. There are so many ways for the City to save money but all they seem to be able to do is spend, spend, spend. Council Member HoKermantries todothis but hoisover ruled most every time. | hate Lnseem him leave. We have a nice little park in our neighborhood that HAD a walking path around it and everyone loved it. The park has an irrigation system, a playground area, picnic tables an the Eagle Scouts built two foot bridges over the ravine where the walking path crosses over. The Parks Department did not maintain the walking path and grass has encroach over the path and the path |ecrumbling. Why the person assigned to trim around the playground area, the picnic tables and along the fence line of all the property owners did not trim along the edges of the walking path is a mystery, Probably laziness on the part of the trimmer ... do only what you have to do, not what you should do. /# one time the city was going to asphalt the walking path. It's a shame the City went to all the work to develop this little park, then let it go. Some of the neighbors take their trimmers and go into the park and trim along the fences. Thank you for your time and I truly hope that you will steer the Council into doing the right thing and take a hard look at city spending and find out WHY the city can't seem to live within their budget and WHERE is the money going that is approved annually by the Council that they constantly need to ask for more. Start making them account for every penny. We can't keep losing people because they cannot afford to live here any longer, we want to be bringing new people to the City which will fill the coffers on a regular basis. We can't grow because the City keeps stifling us. They keep wanting to charge new businesses staggering rates, driving them away. The other day one of my neighbors found a city employees in their front yard digging. She went out tosee what hewas doing and was told looking for the markers. Did hecome tothe door and tell them heneeded tocome ontheir property and do this? No. Hetold them this tree was aireffic hazard and that they may have tntake it down or cut it back. My neighbor said hey, this is not our tree, wejust moved here, wedid not plant this tree, it has to be 40 years old. The tree is NOT a traffic hazard. Not long ago the City stopped and cut branches off his pine tree. He came out to see why they were cutting onhis tree. They told him the garbage man couldn't dump his garbage can because the tree was in the way of lifting the can uphigh enough todump it. What iawrong with this picture? Why didn't the Public Works garbage employee simply tell the homeowner that the garbage truck couldn't dump his garbage can where it was sitting any longer because the tree had grown in the way now. The neighbor could have said oh sure, I'll set it out in a different place for you. No, the City just comes out and cuts half his tree down! | tell you these things because they are just examples of the City wasting time and money. The cost to bring a big truck to the neighbors, three guys on the crew, then out comes a chipper, then all the branches put inthe chipper. All could have been avoided if the City would have just talked tothe homeowner about the problem and the homeowner would have just put the garbage can in a different location. |aita wonder homeowners are disgusted with the City and their spending. The City should be focusing on improving relations with homeowners, working WITH homeowners on matters, living within their means, stop taking more and more and more money from ^me,the paooe" Encourage new folks tomove here, open new businesses, not tax the people out oftheir homes and drive them tnmove away. The City learned avaluable lesson with the traff ic impact fees they got greedy with and end result resulted in a loss of good business wanting to come in; they went elsewhere, now the impact fee iogone. But now the Council isdriving homeowners away byallow the City to keep taxing them for things they themselves got themselves into by ridiculous spending and spending and spending. Read the letter tothe editor ofecouple days ago. Tonight onthe vote, JUST SAY NO. NOT THIS TIME. The City needs tolive within their budget and the Council needs toenforce it. /�// ����x�~4 '~~ / =��/ ' ~_ / ~' Honorable Tammi Fisher Mayor- City of Kalispell, MT 201 — First Avenue Kalispell, MT 59901 RE; Proposed Revenue Source -City Street maintenance Dear Mayor Fisher; I have enjoyed attending numerous meetings throughout our community wherein you have addressed a major financial problem facing the City of Kalispell administration. Specifically; the timely maintenance of the city street and arterial network due to the limited budget available. I realize this issue will be addressed during this evening's Council meeting! | have been astrong advocate of a "User Pays" philosophy concerning many governmental programs during my past years involvement as a private businessperson, elected municipal official, and an involved citizen. You have xto[ed,quheeloquently, that the normal daily wear and tear; the necessity for improvement orreplacement and upgrading ofexisting roadway surfaces that has been due totraffic isNOT due to city residents travelling within the city limits. Due to the geographic nature of our Flathead Valley, I would submit; that the vast majority of wear and tear of our city streets is the result of vehicles that are based outside ofthe City mfKalispell! * The majority of employees that work at locations within the City orperhaps 'across town' from their origin are not city residents. 0 The commercial vehicles that serve the city businesses originate outside the city, state, and/or country! (in most cases!) 0 Our most welcome tourists that visit or pass through on our city streets place a heavy demand onKalispell resources, * Future forecasts would indicate that the vehicle counts will increase dramatically, and yet the growth ofrevenue from city residents will remain relatively stable. This paradox has been duplicated throughout our state, and ismost obvious in the Eastern sector due to increases in petroleum exploration and production. | would submit that the most beneficial use ofcity streets and arterials isbventities that donot contribute proportionately to the expense of maintaining said resources. The most prudent solution tuthis problem istoreview, revise, and amend the existing MCA;soedfca|ly Title 15-Chapter 70. The current tax rate on Gasoline and Diesel fuels has sufficient 'upside' potential, especially when you consider that "Main Street retailers" manipulate their prices with -in a 15-20 cent 590 YOEMAN HALL ROAD . spectrum without so much as a 'squeak' from the average domestic or commercial motorist! 1 will refrain from pursuing any reference to unenforced antitrust violations that may be occurring! The legislative opportunities that await newly elected officials to our State and municipal offices are abundant. Specifically, Cities need to express their entitlement to fuel taxation revenue, even to the extent that any increase should be specifically designated for "City streets". Perhaps this might be based on a designated percentage of State Fuel tax revenue! We await your review of this proposal, and hopefully the City of Kalispell, and our successful Senatorial candidate will carry this message forward to a fruitful conclusion. We thank you for your service, and wish you well in your future endeavors. Sincerely: ohn J. Donoghue Theresa White From: Lawrence Jansen [dunraven4l @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:42 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Urban Forestry Maintence dist/Dutch Elm disease This letter is in reference to the question of assessments for the Urban Forestry/Dutch Elm disease problem. Our answer is a "Complete NO". The problem is an understandable one, but the answering to costs rising can not be "tax em again" to everything that comes along. The hardship that low income or fixed income people have can not keep up with these continued tax increases. Our wasteful spending in Kalispell, is beginning to look more and more like Detroit every day! There are too many questions left unanswered that arise from the memorandum mailed to us. For example, what happens to money already being used from the city budget for this Elm problem after a property tax goes into effect? What happens to the funds being used now from the city budget after the new assessment is enacted? Will the property taxes actually show a decrease after the five years being labeled for this Elm problem? There are two amounts being used for the Urban Forestry. Will there be explanation to where both funds are spent? If one ends and the other begins, do we get a decrease in taxes for the first expenditure? Many, many questions go unanswered by the mailed "memorandum", so our answer to the assessment has to be "please do not approve this tax". submitted 8/5/2013 Lawrence & Janet Jansen 201 Kirsten Drive Kalispell, Montana 59901 1 Theresa White From: Collins[coUnG1@monLananky.biz] Sent: Monday, August U5.2O1O8:26PM To: Theresa White Subject: Public Comment State Statue 69'7'111 My name is Drucilla Parker, I live at 131 Quincy Loop, Kalispell, MT 59901 |amaproperty manager for several apartment complexes here inKalispell. They are all owned byLLC's with ties to Kalispell. Big Sky Manm, Centre Court Manor, Glacier Manor Treasure State BOorkaVillage 8unrid0oPointe Aoartmento We provide low cost apartments to elderly, disabled, and family units providing approximately 300 units of housing in Kalispell. The resolution to this increase will double our trash pick up for these complexes. Our incomes are regulated inthe most part byHUD, and we operate on avery slim margin. The rising costs of e|ectricity, which we provide, gas which we provide, water, sewer, have all had significant increases in the past years that do not meet the small increase we are allowed in controlled rent. This increase is extreme and totally unprepared for As a representative of these units, please do not force our low cost housing into market units with the increases that you are proposing. These units pay property taxes, income taxes and are not non-profit. Most ofthese units were built over 30years ago and are an essential part of the old downtown and were have never provided extreme profits for the owners. Some receive yearly payments from the owners just to keep running that are financed through various other interests. Please find other means tnprovide your services. The newer plastic containers that allow your drivers tonever leave the vehicle are extremely user unfriendly for elderly people do not seem to hold as much as the older metal dumpster type. Please count this aeapublic comment that the City of Kalispell needs to find some other back than property owners for every budget need. Drucilla Parker Theresa White From: CollinsManagement [colli1@biz] Sent 05'20133:35PyN To: Theresa White Subject: Public comment on State Statue 7-12-4177Urban ForeetyMaintenance District Cnumci|, Mvname is DruoUaParker, 131 Quincy Loop, Kalispell, MT. My public comment is that no one ever helps mespray mcut down the trees located onmysmall personal residential lot. Where | live they donot have the beautiful boulevard trees. The Urban ForaatyMaintenance District needsdisbunned and this would beobudget cut for the entire city. Aefar aoI'm concerned, this isanexpense that ksunnecessary and inthis time of budget cuts, the whole project should be cut along with the water expense that I as a home owner must pay to water the public sprinkler systems that the tourists enjoy much more than our citizens. Maybe you need acity sales tax. Please start balancing your budgets with true cuts instead of property tax increases that few citizens can afford in these times of increasingly high medical costs, minimal social security increases, and few high paying employment opportunities. The increases to the property taxes has to stop and the city needs to find some other way to cut costs.