Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Work Session 7:00 p.m.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Courthouse Courtroom
Presentation –Natural Resource Damage Program background by Carol Fox, Greg Mullen and Tom Mostad.
Carol Fox, Greg Mullen and Tom Mostad of the Natural Resource Damage Program introduced themselves for the Commission. Mrs. Fox provided a Power Point overview of the NRD Program. [Clerks note: a copy of this Power Point Presentation will be available within the minute book.] The overview explained the Funding, Settlement, current Litigation suits, Grant Applications and the Legal Threshold (how the settlement funds can be spent). Mrs. Fox reported that more information is available through her office if any of the Commission is interested. She mainly went through the basics of the Natural Resource Damage Program.
CEO Guay asked if the Grant funds include fees for Grant writers. Mrs. Fox answered yes and further explained that there are funds available for grant writing through a “Project Development Grant”.
Mr. Serge Myers of Opportunity asked if the Silver Lake Water line produces water for Silver Bow Creek. Mrs. Fox was not sure if it does right now but stated that Butte Silver Bow has industrial use water rights. Mr. Myers was wondering if this water line could be replaced using NRD funds. She stated that Butte Silver Bow may put in this request; however, the NRD Council will have to look at the benefits of changing this water line.
Gene Vuckovich asked what the status was on the Anaconda Uplands lawsuit. Mrs. Fox reported that there was a negative decision by Judge Hadden. They have tried to appeal this decision and they were not allowed to appeal that decision until the other two claims have been settled.
Mr. Alden Beard of BETA asked Mrs. Fox to explain the future application process once the Anaconda Uplands decision has been made. Mrs. Fox explained that if the Anaconda Uplands decision is made in favor of the State of Montana, the NRD Program will be earmarking these settlement dollars that can be used within the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County area. The other NRD Settlement dollars will also be available to Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. Mrs. Fox reported that the prospective settlement claim is $175 million dollars for three sites: the Anaconda Uplands, Butte Area One and Clark Fork River.
Mr. Vuckovich asked if the State does not allow to appeal the decision made (since the decision was made in favor of ARCO), why would ARCO be willing to discuss a settlement? Mrs. Fox stated that they have reached a principal agreement with ARCO that is very promising.
Commissioner Sweeney asked about the rehabilitation in German Gulch. Mrs. Fox turned the floor over to Tom Mostad. He explained that German Gulch has potential restoration that will include trail building, bridge building work land and water rights acquisition work and
Commission Work Session
February 27, 2007/Page Two
irrigation work.
Commissioner Sweeney asked Water Supervisor Jim Heaphy if Anaconda-Deer Lodge County currently has storage rights on Hearst Lake. Mr. Heaphy was not sure. Commissioner Sweeney stated that if so, the Water Rights would have value for sale to industries.
The Commission thanked Carol Fox, Tom Mostad and Greg Mullen for their presentation and information.
Discussion – 2007 NRD Draft Grant Application for East 6th Street and East 7th Street Water Mains and Meter/Model Study.
Mr. Alden Beard addressed the Commission. He provided the Commission with the draft applications for the East 6th and East 7th Street water main replacement and the Meter/Model Study. The East 6th and East 7th Street water line project is for the replacement of approximately 5,000 feet of pipe that the County was not able to afford to complete as the second half of the West 7th Street project. The County has decided to re-apply for NRD funds with two major adjustments. The first adjustment made is because the cost estimate from the 2005 application became a victim of inflation. Appendix F referenced $870,000 in constructions costs. The cost estimate has now increased to $1.09 million. The second adjustment made is the matching funds. The matching funds are now being proposed at 5.72%. This match consists of 800 hours of County Departmental staff time and the cost of disposing of material excavated that is not returned in place. Any material that is not put back in place is considered hazardous material and must be disposed of at the Opportunity repository.
Mr. Beard reported that Chief Executive Guay has initiated discussions with the Montana Rural Water Systems to conduct a water rate evaluation. The water/metering component of this study will ducktail very closely with that. The County is looking to restore and generate revenue and water metering needs to be considered. Anaconda Local Development conducted a community needs study that showed water metering to be undesirable. The Master Plan proposed that water metering would begin in 2007. The Master Plan has been amended to allow water metering to begin in 2009 after some aggressive education and public outreach. The distributing modeling sizes is to develop a hydraulic model of the entire water system and this will ducktail on the leakage re-evaluation that has been suggested by NRD and has been funded. The model will allow an accurate assessment of the consumer base on metering and the benefit of a thorough and clear analysis on rates and the County will be able to build on the 2004 Master Plan. Mr. Beard reported that if there are no questions or concerns with these draft applications he will be finalizing the documents to meet the March 9th deadline.
The Commission requested that this item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
Commission Work Session
February 27, 2007/Page Three
Discussion – Law Enforcement Montana Model Policy Guidelines.
Chief of Law Enforcement John Sullivan addressed the Commission. These Model Policy Guidelines have been brought to us by an effort between Montana Municipal Insurance Authority, Montana Association of Counties and the Montana Law Enforcement Academy. These policies are model policies and they have them in place for the benefit of the County as well as the Insurance carrier. There are 16 major policies within this manual that need to be reviewed by the Commission and adopted as policy. Chief Sullivan does not want the Commission to act on these Guidelines at their next meeting because he would like the Commission to take time to review this. The County Attorney also needs time to review them.
Chairwoman Sather asked if there were any areas that Chief Sullivan felt he could not deal with in this new policy. Chief Sullivan stated that he is okay with all of the updated policies.
This item will be placed on the Commission agenda at a later date for Commission approval.
Discussion – Bowman FAA Bid Award for Pavement Maintenance.
Mr. Jim Novak, Airport Manager, addressed the Commission. Mr. Novak explained that this project will be for repair of pavement, crack sealing and re-stripping the runways at the Bowman Airport. The Commission approved this project last year but there were problems with the contractor and their insurance. This project has been re-bid and he recommends the Commission award the bid to Hard Drive out of Billings, MT. They were the lowest bidder at $101,472.00. This project is financed mostly by the FAA. 95% of the funds will come from FAA. The other 5% will be funded by the State Aeronautics and the County. The State Aeronautics has agreed to pay $2,640.00. With administration costs the total amount of this project will be $136,922. FAA will pay $130,775.00, the State Aeronautics will pay $2,640.00 and the County will be required to pay $4,207.00. This project will extend the life of the runway for 8-10 years. CEO Guay reported that there are sufficient funds in this budget to cover the $4,207.00.
The Commission requested that this item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
Discussion – Resolution No. 07-21, A Resolution to establish the Weed Board By-Laws.
Sharon Scognamiglio addressed the Commission. She explained that the established By-Laws set by the Weed Board in 1986 stipulated the formation of the Board. When the Board was re-established by Ordinance in 1996 the guidelines for the formation of the Board were never used. Unfortunately the Board has never used the guidelines from the Ordinance to establish memberships. In 2001 when the board adopted the revised By-Laws, they changed the format of memberships to the 1986 formation not realizing it had been changed in the first place. There is
Commission Work Session
February 27, 2007/Page Four
an existing conflict of membership between the Weed Board By-Laws and the Ordinance. Because of this conflict it seems necessary to amend Ordinance No. 161 to change the format of memberships to the Weed Board.
CEO Guay clarified that the Commission would have to amend Ordinance No. 161 to amend the Weed Board membership from what is currently in Ordinance No. 161, which is by Districts, to have the appointments done by 3 rural/agricultural members, 1 in town member and 1 member at large. Ms. Scognamiglio explained that the Board has never gone by the District appointments. She stated that the Weed Board would be more represented of the weed situation, in that there are more weed in the rural/agricultural areas that in town.
Chairwoman Sather stated that it seems more appropriate to have on member from each District. Ms. Scognamiglio stated that the entire Weed Board would need to be changed. Chairwomen Sather stated that she would rather change the Board and not the Ordinance. CEO Guay stated that the County would then need to re-advertise for new members for the Weed Board. Commissioners Pierce and Lorello both agreed that they would rather leave the existing Ordinance in place and appoint memberships by District.
Commissioner Sweeney asked who is implementing the change and where is it coming from, agriculture interests? CEO Guay stated that this is not a request to change. This is just a request to revamp the Ordinance to meet the way the current Board is conducting appointments.
The Commission recommended to not place this item on the next agenda and to re-advertise for the Weed Board to appoint members by District.
Discussion - Resolution No. 07-10, A Resolution to approve a Weed Plan Review Fee.
Sharon Scognamiglio addressed the Commission. She explained that the County tried to implement a plan review fee a year ago but it has taken this long with the County Attorney to get something in a correct format that is good for everyone as far as the fee structure goes. The Weed Board did not want to go too high and decided to go by acreage of a subdivision rather than number of lots.
Chairwoman Sather stated that some questions have been brought to her attention and she will ask Ms. Scognamiglio them. Chairwoman Sather asked if a Weed Management Plan have to be done by the County or could an outside source perform this work? Ms. Scognamiglio explained that another party could prepare the Weed Plan but the Weed Plan Review needs to have County approval. The next question was what duties are performed for the $50.00 per 160 acres, what does it cover? Ms. Scognamiglio explained that this fee would cover the travel to the site and inspect the property to verify what is present and how much is present. Most people at that time will then contract with the County Weed Department to spray weeds. This $50.00 fee is for writing the weed plan, putting it through the approval process and for the inspection. The next question was if there was a $25.00 fee already paid to the Planning Department with regards
Commission Work Session
February 27, 2007/Page Five
to the Subdivision Regulations. Lisa Saur addressed the Commission. She explained that she is not familiar with a $25.00 fee; however, per the regulations and the Preliminary Plat application a fee is assessed to the developer and it does cover the weed management plan. Chairwoman Sather asked if this Resolution would be considered double dipping? It has been discussed through the Subdivision Regulations that the weed management approval is part of the Preliminary Plat fee. Mrs. Saur stated that Linda Bouck would be a much better individual to discuss this issue with.
CEO Guay suggested tabling this item until this can be looked into further. If the Planning Department is currently receiving money for the Weed Management Plan Review then we may want to look at moving money from the Planning Department to fund the Weed Department instead of charging an additional fee.
Mr. Gene Vuckovich stated isn’t the Plan Review part of the position of Weed Coordinator? Isn’t this part of the office’s job? Does each County Department charge extra fees when they do a public service? He asked what would be done differently than what is already being done now? Ms. Scognamiglio explained that when the “big bill” went through, it provided permission to finally charge a fee for this service. Now it is part of State Law that a fee can be charged to defray costs such as gas and time.
CEO Guay stated that the Weed Department does incur costs to do subdivision reviews especially with the inspections. This is an expense that should be incurred by the developer; however, if that money is already built into the subdivision costs then the County should not be charging a separate fee. This is something that needs to be looked into.
The Commission recommended tabling this item.
Discussion – Resolution No. 07-23, A Resolution to approve a Weed Management Plan.