1. Ordinance 1750 - First Reading - Expanding and Adjusting the Assessment for the Light Maintenance DistrictCharles A. Harball Office of City Attorney
City Attomey 201 First Avenue East
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
0
TOO
0
FROMO
SUBJECT.
0
MEETING DATE.
Ilil��7�: ►\�illi1��11
Doug Russell, City Manager D9
Tel 406.758.7709
Fax 406.758.7771
ch,ubAl@V-alisA2ell.Q*n
Ordinance No. 1750 — Expanding the City of Kalispell Light
Maintenance District
December 15, 2014 — Regular Council Meeting — First Reading
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 t
the City.
Based upon all evidence provided to the Council, it may make the finding 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. It may therefore also find that it is not only in the best interests of
the city and its residents to expand the Light Maintenance District but to also adjust the rate
structure to reflect the lesser benefit to a property not within 300 feet of a street light as well as
to give some credit for contributions to the maintenance of certain subdivision streetlights that
are not maintained by the City.
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.
RECOALVIEENDATION: The City Council may, if deemed in the best interests of the City, pass
Ordinance No. 1750 on first reading or may table the matter to a later date to consider further
evidence presented at the hearing or take such other action as seems appropriate.
Respectfully s *1
Charles 1166all, City Attorney
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 7-12-43019
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, 201.4 the Kalispell City Council passed Resolution No. 569'5
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.
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, CM
City Clerk I
City of Kalispell
t Na
�.
Post office Box 1997 - KhspeH, Montana 59903
_ Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Pax: (406) .758- 7758
f
_.._...:.�:€:r.:�':>3:':�C�'�05f�'!'i..�...•a,::�...s.. a7tw ��k�."+,".?�•"�^'..��..`�"`.�sc�s�s.�c.'zsr..:�.:isLKwa:.S�e.rslGf.Yi_+,.A..,=.�a'.h`�:t4t:$.vrEit�
MEMORANDUM
Pursuant -to State Statute, 7-11, Fart 43, M.C.A., attached is a notice of a publip hearing on
December 15, 2014, on a proposal to adjust assessments and expand. the Light Maintenance
Dist ict in, the Cityof Kalispell. The resolution. of intent and call for public hearing is also
ixicluded for your review.
proposal p`osal would adjust the assessment rate from. $0.00300 r square foot to $0.00330 p+er,
' _
---Square foot. -and .expand -the -fight Maintenance District to. include -all pmperties-that are wit -ia-
the Units, of the City of Kalispell. Currently, only properties that are within 300 feet of a street
light! are assessed. However, those properties that are not wig 300 feet of a street light would
pay 50% of the assessment rate ($0.00165 per sg4are foot). The proposed adjustments would
provide the city with the ability to add 5 new .lights per year when requested and justified, and to
maintamn services within the fight 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 5, 2014,
be ' *g at n 7:00 p City .m. in the Ci Hall Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East.
Please contact the Public Works Department -with any questions you may have at (406) 758-
7552. -
Tharik you,
Doug Russell 0 -- .r
City Maaa er
• b r
'0,4�4'e' -�o
i •
i
r
J
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
111rear 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 Guiffricla
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:49 PM
To- City Council
0 cc: Doug Russell; Aimee Brunckhorst
® Fwd: New Lighting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This email was sent to me directly. I will be responding to all emails coming from Ward 4 citizens.
See you Monda3l
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: James Garvey <garvev@bresnan.net
Date: December 3. 2014 at 9:58:23 AM MS
To: <pguiffrida@kalis-pell.com>
Subject: New Lighting I
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 to 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
0
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
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 a 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!
Ryan Bowman
il
Aimee Brunckhorst
From: Tasha Felton <feltonAmarie@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
'"e 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.
IMEM
Jesse Newby & Tasha Felton.
kill
Tasha Felton
705 7th Street W
Kalispell, MT 59901
406.223.0781
felton.trnarlegemail. com
11
From:
R B yan owman
To:
Ximge 13[u0ckhqrstt
Subject:
Comment on Light Maintenance District
Date:
Sunday, November 30,,2014 3:56#123 PM
Hello,
I am a resident at 25' uskrat, Drive inKal M ispell. I would like to comment oil. the proposed
Lige District expansion.
I am NOT in favor of this expansion. The City and County are always looking for more
money. The city ser ' vices are sub -par. I live in the city and pay taxes, but get virtually- no
services. My garba i ot collected, and I had to pay almost $6,000 to hook my new house
ge is n
UP to the sewer - an increase that was passed DURING construction with little notice.
The city needs to leai n. to work with the resources it already has. The need for more lights i.s a
direct cause of more houses - -aka - more taxes. Please quil taxing us for more than more
items !
Thank you,
."Ryan Bowman
aiwnsw Ca) v .
qJ.
Aimee Brunckhorst
From: Susie Turner
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:59 AM
® Aimee Brunckhorst
Subject: FW: Public Comment FW: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Response from Mr. Mahlum regarding light maintenance.
Susie
... . . . .. . . . ..
From: Edwin Mahlurn [mailto:nfeight@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:00 PIVI
To: Susie Turner
Subject: Re: Public Comment FW: Questions about Street Light Maintenance and 4
Thank you, Susie, for your response. I think our HOA is beginning to understand that there are specific lightei
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 to me I will let you know.
Thanks again for your time,
•
Good Morning Mr. Muhlual
Below are responses to your 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 a 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 a 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,
0
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 • systems. At the time of development the owner (developer) has the option to install and meet
City/Flt Elec standard lighting requirements or install 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, or homeowner's association.
After much discussion it was agreed parcels with private lights receive the same community benefit as a parce'
that is not within 300' of a light. The community benefit cost was determined to be approximately 50% of the
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 50% of the rate as a parcel within 300' of a light (see
below).
a. Increasing the rate •for currently assessed •parcels •(parcels within 300 • •light) from $0.0030 to $0.0033.
• Expanding the • to •- an assessment • $0.00165 for parcels not within 300 • a light (50% less
than for parcels within 300 • •
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
sturnler,@,kal,l,spe1,.COM
Susie Turner
• Works Director
758-7852
From: Edwin Mahlum [mailtomfeigh- -ahotmaiLcom]
Sent: Tuesday., December 02, 2014 12:09 PM
To: Kalispell City Council
Subiect: Questions about Street Light Maintenance Ward 4
From Leisure Heights Homeowners Association.
Questions regarding the new taxes being implemented for Kalispell Street Light Maintenance.
0
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 any people who
do not live in our subdivision.
Sincerely,
Residents of Leisure Heights Subdivision.
Ed Mahlum — Design Review Board
Light Maintenance Call
Within 300-.0033 $/sf
Not within 300-.00165 $/sf
Date
No.
Contact In
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.
/1/4
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 no
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
Le x Blood, 3 rd Ave E and 9th
Is it equitable, basis
Called back,, left
St Ell
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 Call
Within 300"-.0033 $/sf
Not within 300-.00165 $/sf
Date
No.
Contact Info
Question/Concern
Reply/Discussion
12/3/2014
10
Annie Rieker, 890-1928,
Does not ant
Is currently being
11176 to St W 10771993
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 an, 25 Muskrat
Email stating not in
Currently being
Drive, ryansw@gmaii.com
favor of expansion
assessed for LM,
adjustment would be
$1.85/year. Did not
respond back.
12/3/2014
12
Tas Felton, 311 E
Email stating not in
Currently being
California St,
favor of expansion,
assessed for LM,
feltonAM2LIgr ail.corn,
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
D r.
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
Mainl 261-1061
favor of expansion.
assessed for LM,
Suggested to stop
adjustment of 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