Loading...
B3. Ordinance 1750 Second Reading - Expanding the Light Maintenance District and Adjusting the AssessmentCharles A. Harball Office of City Attorney City Attorney 201 First Avenue East P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Doug Russell, City Manager yR- Charles Harball, City Attorney Tel 406.758.7709 Fax 406.758.7771 charball@kalispell.com Ordinance No. 1750 — Expanding the City of Kalispell Light Maintenance District BACKGROUND: The City of Kalispell previously established a Light Maintenance District for which real property within the city that is within 300 feet of a city maintained street light is assessed costs for the maintenance and operation of the street lighting system. Earlier in the year the Council had the matter before it and determined, based upon the public testimony, that City staff should do further study to take into account certain subdivisions that maintain streetlights through homeowners associations as well as properties that are not within 300 feet of a streetlight but which nevertheless benefit from the existence of streetlights elsewhere in the City. On November 17, 2014, the Kalispell City Council passed Resolution No. 5695 indicating its intent to expand the Light Maintenance District to include all real properties within the boundaries of the City and to make adjustments to the rate structure. A public hearing was called to take place before the Council on December 15, 2014, to consider all evidence provided to the City. Council then considered all evidence presented, including public testimony and passed Ordinance No. 1750 on first reading. FISCAL EFFECTS: Passing the ordinance will have the fiscal effect of spreading the costs of maintaining and operating the city street lighting system across a larger base and maintain the present level of service for a period of at least five years. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may, if deemed in the best interests of the City, pass Ordinance No. 1750 on second reading. Respectfully submitted, Charles Harball, City'Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 1750 AN ORDINANCE EXPANDING THE CITY OF KALISPELL LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT AND ADJUSTING THE RATES THEREIN PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY AND UNDER THE PROCEDURES OF MCA 7-12-4301, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CODIFY THE SAME AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell, pursuant to the authority provided to it under MCA 7-12- 4301 et seq., previously established a Light Maintenance District, for which real property within the city that is within 300 feet of a city maintained street light is assessed costs for the maintenance and operation of the street lighting system; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014 the Kalispell City Council passed Resolution No. 5695 indicating its intent to expand the existing Light Maintenance District to include all real properties within the boundaries of the city, to adjust the rates therein and called for a public hearing to take place before the council on December 15, 2014 and to consider all written evidence provided to the city prior to the hearing as well as all oral testimony provided at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council has considered all written evidence submitted prior to the time of the hearing as well as the oral testimony provided at the December 15, 2014 public hearing, and after full discussion and consideration, finds that all owners of real property in the city derive significant benefit from street lighting in the city regardless of the placement of the streetlights; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds therefore that it is in the best interests of the city and its residents to amend the Light Maintenance District to include all properties that are within the limits of the city now upon an annual schedule as follows: Properties within 300' of City $ 0.0033 per square foot maintained street light Capped at five acres for vacant land Properties not within 300' of City $ 0.00165 per square foot maintained street light Capped at five acres for vacant land NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Light Maintenance District is hereby expanded to include all properties that are within the limits of the city. SECTION 2. The council shall hereafter, by resolution, set the annual assessment for all properties that are within the limits of the city at the time of such resolution to pay the costs for the maintenance and operation of the city street lighting system. SECTION 3. The City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to recodify this Ordinance. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. Mark Johnson Mayor ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk City of Kalispell - Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758 MEMORANDUM Pursuant.to State Statute, 7-12, Part 43, M.C.A., attached is a notice of a public hearing on December 15, 2014, on a proposal to adjust assessments and expand the Light Maintenance District in the City of Kalispell. The resolution of intent and call for public hearing is also included for your review. The proposal would adjust the assessment rate from $0.00300 per square foot to $0.00330 per _ _-- ---square footand expand -the -Light Maintenance District to -include all properties -that are within_ _-- ---_ -- -- - . the limits of the City of Kalispell. Currently, only properties that are within 300 feet of a street lightl are assessed. However, those properties that are not within 300 feet of a street light would pay 50% of the assessment rate ($0.00165 per square foot). The proposed adjustments would provide the city with the ability to. add 5 new lights per year when requested and justified, and to maintain services within the Light Maintenance District. Please review the attached documentation and the City of Kalispell website for additional information, and note the public hearing for this proposal is scheduled for December 15, 2014, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East. Please contact the Public Works Department with any questions you may have at (406) 758- 7852. Thank you, Doug Russell City Manager_ _YIA 40 C'/b { �G1� From: Edwin Mahlum <nfeight@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:09 PM To: Kalispell City Council Subject: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4 Dear Tim Kluesner and Paul Guiffrida, from Leisure Heights Homeowners Association. Questions regarding the new taxes being implemented for Kalispell Street Light Maintenance. 1. How was the Street Light Maintenance paid for before this new proposal? 2. Is this assessment to maintain all street lights in Kalispell or for just certain street lights that it has been asserted all city residents benefit from? 3. If it is for all the lights in Kalispell is it not true that in Leisure Heights we have a subdivision where since we pay for our own lighting then we pay our share of the lighting of Kalispell. 4. Or if it is for just the maintenance on certain special lights in Kalispell are there not really three classes of residents in the City and not the two suggested? a) Those who have no lighting and are not within 300 feet of a Kalispell street light? b) Those who have lighting by being within 300 feet of a Kalispell street light? c) Those who have lighting by being within 300 feet of a Kalispell street light provided and maintained by a homeowner's association? 4. In our particular case at Leisure Heights Subdivision we provide what we consider to be better street and sidewalk lighting for 30 acres of homes in Kalispell than most homeowners in Kalispell receive. 5. At Leisure Heights with about $3000 a year our association pays for lighting and currently about 50 home owners we each are already paying about $60 a year to light the streets of Kalispell. 6. The streets in our subdivision are just as open for the other residents of Kalispell to use and enjoy are any of the other streets in Kalispell. We have traffic on our streets and sidewalks from many people who do not live in our subdivision. Sincerely, Residents of Leisure Heights Subdivision. Ed Mahlum — Design Review Board Aimee Brunckhorst From: Phil Guiffrida Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:49 PM To: City Council Cc: Doug Russell; Aimee Brunckhorst Subject: Fwd: New Lighting Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello, This email was sent to me directly. I will be responding to all emails coming from Ward 4 citizens. See you Monday, Phil Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: James Garvey < arvey@bresnan.net> Date: December 3, 2014 at 9:58:23 AM MST To: <pguiffrida@kalispell.com> Subject: New Lighting I would assume the meeting discussing the new lighting proposal for a new development will bring about a packed house. So rather than wait my turn and be given 3 minutes to voice my opinion, I'd much rather E-Mail. I live on the east side of Hwy #93 at 37 Honeysuckle Lane and we have street lamps and a portion of our taxes go to pay for the maintenance on those lamps. So any new additional tax for the installation of new street lamps should fall on those who wish to live in a new developing area, not to all of us. Thank You, Mr. Jim Garvey Aimee Brunckhorst From: Ryan Bowman <ryansw@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 3:56 PM To: Aimee Brunckhorst Subject: Comment on Light Maintenance District Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello, I am a resident at 25 Muskrat Drive in Kalispell. I would like to comment on the proposed Light Maintenance District expansion. I am NOT in favor of this expansion. The City and County are always looking for more money. The city services are sub -par. I live in the city and pay taxes, but get virtually no services. My garbage is not collected, and I had to pay almost $6,000 to hook my new house up to the sewer - an increase that was passed DURING construction with little notice. The city needs to learn to work with the resources it already has. The need for more lights is a direct cause of more houses - aka - more taxes. Please quit taxing us for more than more items! Thank you, Ryan Bowman a•yansw @ gmail.com Aimee Brunckhorst From: Tasha Felton <felton.tmarie@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 6:32 AM To: Aimee Brunckhorst Subject: Comments regarding proposed light maintenance district expansion Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Aimee Brunckhorst, We are contacting you in regard to the proposal to expand the Light Maintenance District and raise the assessment on certain properties. We would like to request that the city council does not go forward with this expansion. A net increase in lighting seems to us unnecessary. If anything, the current efforts to provide lighting are in excess. We would rather the lighting was thinned out and efforts were made to reduce the light pollution that Kalispell and the surrounding area are generating. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this resolution. Sincerely, Jesse Newby & Tasha Felton. 311 East California Street Kalispell, MT 59901 Tasha Felton 705 7th Street W Kalispell, MT 59901 406.223.0781 felton.tmarie cnie,gmail.com From: Ryan Bowman To: Aimee Brunckhors Subject: Comment on Light Maintenance District Date- Sunday, November 30, 2014 3:56:23 PM Hello, I am a resident at 25Muskrat :Drive in Kalispell. I would like to comment on the proposed Light Maintenance District expansion. I am NOT in favor of this expansion. The City and County are always looking for more money. The city services are sub -par. I live in the city and pay taxes, but get virtually no services. My garbage is not collected, and I had to pay almost $6,000 to hook my new house up to the sewer - an increase that was passed DURING construction with little notice. The city needs to learn to work with the resources it already has. The need for more lights is a direct cause of snore houses - aka -inure taxes. Please quit taxing us for more than more items! Thank you, Ryan Bowman rvanswQQmail.cQM Aimee Brunckhorst From: Susie Turner Sent: Thursday, December lI,2OI47:59Ak4 To: Aimee8runckhont Subject: FVV: Public Comment FVV: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4 Follow UpFlag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Edwin K4ah|uno [nnaiho:nfeight@hotmaiioom] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:00 PM To: Susie Turner Subject: Re: Public Comment FW: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4 Thank you, Susie, for your response. I think our HOA is beginning to understand that there are specific lighted areas in the city that we all benefit from above and beyond normal neighborhood lighting. If anyone has any further questions for you and they talk tonoe|will let you know. Thanks again for your time, EdMah|uno From: Susie Turner Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:27 AM To: Cc: Susie Turner Subject: Re: Public Comment FW: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4 Good Morning Mr. K8uh|unn, Below are responses toyour inquiries about the proposed Light Maintenance Expansion. 1. The current light maintenance assessment is an annual tax levied on properties in the City that are within 300' of City street light. 2. The current light maintenance assessment (assessed to properties within 300' of a City street light) covers the electrical, operational, maintenance, and replacement costs associated with street lights, downtown decorative lights, traffic signals, and recreational lights associated with municipal parks, including the golf course. 3. After much discussion council determined City parcels within 300/ of light are not the only parcels receiving a benefit from a City wide light system; the community as a whole benefits. Community benefit was defined as those lights located along the State highways, minor arterials, collectors, school routes, hospital routes, traffic signals, decorative downtown lighting, and recreational lights associated with municipal parks, including the golf course. The percent calculation shows 51.3% of the annual costs are associated with the community benefit definition. 4. Several options were considered when reviewing the light maintenance assessment. Subdivisions with private lighting systems were reviewed and discussed at length. Currently there are 7 subdivisions with private light systems. At the time of development the owner (developer) has the option to install and meet Citv/F|t Becstandard lighting requirements orinstall their own lighting system. City standard installed lights are turned over and maintained by the City at the completion of development, lighting system that do not meet City standards are considered private and are maintained by the owner, orhomeowner's association. After much discussion it was agreed parcels with private lights receive the same community benefit as a parcel that isnot within 30O'ofalight. The community benefit cost was determined 1obeapproximately 50Y6ofthe light maintenance fund. The proposed lighting assessment includes expanding the district to all parcels within the City and assessing parcels not within 300/ of a light 50Y6 of the rate as a parcel within 300y of light (see b8|0vv). e. Increasing the rate for currently assessed parcels (parcels within 300' of light) from $8.0030to $0.0033. b. Expanding the district to include an assessment of$O.00l65 for parcels not within 300/ of a light (50Y6 |e5S than for parcels within 3OQ'oflight). Under the proposed light assessment the average assessment for parcels in Leisure Heights would be $24.00 annually. If your have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at 758-7852 or Susie Turner Public Works Director 75Q-785Z From: Kalispell City Council Sent Wednesday, December 3,2Ql49:1ZAM To: Susie Turner; Chad Graham; Charlie Harball; Doug Russell; Jim Atkinson; Kari Gabriel; Mark Johnson; Phil Guiffrida; Rod Kuntz; Sandy Carlson; Tim K|uesner;Wayne Saverud Subject: Public Comment FW: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4 From: Edwin Mah|um Sent Tuesday, DecemberU2, 2014 12:09 PM To: Kalispell City Council Subject: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4 Dear Tim Kluesoer and Paul from Leisure Heights Homeowners Association. Questions regarding the new taxes being implemented for Kalispell Street Light Maintenance. 1. How was the Street Light Maintenance paid for before this new proposal? 2. Is this assessment to maintain all street lights in Kalispell or for just certain street lights that it has been asserted all city residents benefit from? 3. If it is for all the lights in Kalispell is it not true that in Leisure Heights we have a subdivision where since we pay for our own lighting then we pay our share of the lighting of Kalispell. 4. Or if it is for just the maintenance on certain special lights in Kalispell are there not really three classes of residents in the City and not the two suggested? a) Those who have no lighting and are not within 300 feet of a Kalispell street light? b) Those who have lighting by being within 300 feet of a Kalispell street light? c) Those who have lighting by being within 300 feet of a Kalispell street light provided and maintained by a homeowner's association? 4. In our particular case at Leisure Heights Subdivision we provide what we consider to be better street and sidewalk lighting for 30 acres of homes in Kalispell than most homeowners in Kalispell receive. 5. At Leisure Heights with about $3000 a year our association pays for lighting and currently about 50 home owners we each are already paying about $60 a year to light the streets of Kalispell. 6. The streets in our subdivision are just as open for the other residents of Kalispell to use and enjoy are any of the other streets in Kalispell. We have traffic on our streets and sidewalks from many people who do not live in our subdivision. Sincerely, Residents of Leisure Heights Subdivision. Ed Mahlum — Design Review Board Jght Maintenance Calls Within 300'-.0033 $/sf Not within 300'-.00165 $/sf Date No. Contact Info Question/Concern Reply/Discussion 11/18/2014 1 Jerry Stahlberg Cost for his property. He'll be assessed I explained $359.37, for property assessment criteria NOT within 300'of and structure street light 11/25/2014 2 Sunny-HOA President of New cost for Explained criteria and Lone Pine Trails residents with structure. Residents private system paying for community benefit portion. 12/1/2014 3 322 North Ridge Drive -Fred Wanted to know Called back, Segal increase proposal for assessment to ass # 0747415 increase then than 3 dollars. No comment 12/1/2014 4 Resident at Ashley Park Wanted to know Called back, increase proposal for assessment to 9356.4 sf increase then than 3 dollars. No comment 12/2/2014 5 Connie Colonius, Greatview town Called back, Her 202 Columba Lane homes: Assessment assessment will be added per unit (8), $17.20. Not currently includes common being assessed. Not space per unit at within 300' of street 10,424 sf light. No comment 12/2/2014 6 Lex Blood, 3 rd Ave E and 9th Is it equitable, basis Called back, left St E, of % increase within message 300 ft, % not within 300 ft 12/2/2014 7 Pat Nulley, 375 5 Ave WN, Called back, Small already assessed increase no concern 12/2/2014 8 Dennis Morgan Glacier Village Called back, talked Greens through 50% charge, didn't like the way it was broken out. 12/2/2014 9 Didn't catch name Glacier Village Explained they will be Greens townhouse assessed a .00165 $/sf rate Light Maintenance Cal Within 300'-.0033 $/sf Not within 300'-.00165 $/sfi Date No. Contact Info Question/Concern Reply/Discussion 12/3/2014 10 Annie Rieker, 890-1928, Does not want Is currently being 1117 6t' St W, 0771993 increase, currently assessed for LM, feels she is receiving adjustment would be no benefit from light 3.57 $/year. Did not on 6 th St like timing of Public Hearing During December, feels no one is around to comment. 12/3/2014 11 Ryan Bowman, 25 Muskrat Email stating not in Currently being Drive, ryansw@gmail.com favor of expansion assessed for LM, adjustment would be $1.85/year. Did not respond back. 12/3/2014 12 Tasha Felton, 311 E Email stating not in Currently being California St, favor of expansion, assessed for LM, fel!2p.tmarie@gmail.com would rather see adjustment would be 0790300 lighting thinned out. $2.13/year. Did not respond back. 12/3/2014 13 Wayne Pris, 453 Northridge Email request to Response email, yes Dr. determine if lights lights on Northridge were in LM District Drive are within LM District 12/3/2014 14 Robert Neuller, Called, said he'd call back. 12/3/2014 15 Jon Heselwood, 785 N Email stating not in Currently being Main, 261-1061 favor of expansion. assessed for I-M, Suggested to stop adjustment would be doing something to $1.95/year. generate money needed for fund. 12/4/2014 16 Denise VanArtsdale, 250- Discussed reasoning She understood 4291, property on Hwy 93 S behind community aspect, was going to benefit, and method discuss with partners for breakout and submit comment 17 18 19 20