City Council Agenda

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA February 26, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers, 201 First Avenue East See the bottom of the agenda to learn how to provide public comment and watch meetings live or later. A. CALL TO ORDER B. DISCUSSION 1. Discussion of Judicial Order related to November Election 2. Solid Waste Master Planning C. PUBLIC COMMENT Persons wishing to address the council are asked to do so at this time. See the bottom of the agenda to learn the protocol for providing comment. D. CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL, AND MAYOR REPORTS E. ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING SCHEDULE Next Regular Meeting – March 4, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers Next Work Session – March 25, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers A work session is not scheduled for March 11, 2024 PARTICIPATION Those addressing the council are requested to give their name and address for the record. Please see the last page of the agenda for the proper manner of addressing the council and limit comments to three minutes. Comments can also be sent to publiccomment@kalispell.com. To provide public comment live, remotely, register for the video conference through zoom at: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_GcY0pJZkRV-kyNLIXKPk7w. Raise your virtual hand to indicate you would like to provide comment. Watch City Council sessions live with the agenda and supporting documents or later with documents and time stamped minutes at: https://www.kalispell.com/480/Meeting-Videos. Watch City Council sessions live or later on Charter Cable Ch. 190 or via the City YouTube page at: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofkalispellmontana9632/streams. Page 1 of 2  Kalispell City Council Agenda, January 22, 2024 The City does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its programs, services, activities, and employment practices. Auxiliary aids are available. For questions about disability accommodation please contact the City Clerk at 406-758-7756. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Adopted July 1, 1991 Section 2-20 Manner of Addressing Council a. Each person not a Council member shall address the Council, at the time designated in the agenda or as directed by the Council, by stepping to the podium or microphone, giving that person's name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the Council, shall limit the address to the Council to three minutes. b. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member of the Council or Staff. c. No person, other than the Council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. d. No question shall be asked of individuals except through the Presiding Officer. PRINCIPLES FOR CIVIL DIALOGUE Adopted by Resolution 5180 on February 5, 2007 ◼ We provide a safe environment where individual perspectives are respected, heard, and acknowledged. ◼ We are responsible for respectful and courteous dialogue and participation. ◼ We respect diverse opinions as a means to find solutions based on common ground. ◼ We encourage and value broad community participation. ◼ We encourage creative approaches to engage in public participation. ◼ We value informed decision-making and take personal responsibility to educate and be educated. ◼ We believe that respectful public dialogue fosters healthy community relationships, understanding, and problem solving. ◼ We acknowledge, consider and respect the natural tensions created by collaboration, change, and transition. ◼ We follow the rules & guidelines established for each meeting. Page 2 of 2  City of Kalispell 201 1st Ave E. P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 (406) 758-7000 Fax (406)7757 REPORT TO: Mayor Johnson and Kalispell City Council FROM: Doug Russell, City Manager SUBJECT: District Court Order on Municipal Election MEETING DATE: February 26, 2024 BACKGROUND: On February 16, a ruling from District Court was issued that set aside the elections for Ward 1 and Ward 2 of the City of Kalispell municipal election. The decision was based on Flathead County using the previous Ward boundary maps, rather than the updated boundary maps passed by the City of Kalispell. At the time of this writing, city staff is seeking clarification on what that order means for our sitting councilors in Wards 1 and 2. Further clarification could result in proceeding with the current make-up of the City Council until a new election is held, or potentially having vacancies in those positions that may need to be filled be appointment under state law, MCA 7-4-4112, until a new election is conducted by the County. We will continue investigating this issue between now and the meeting on Monday the 26th to discuss the topic with Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff will review the available information related to the Judicial decision with Council and outline potential avenues for action, if applicable. ATTACHMENTS: Judicial Order  FILED 02/16/2024 Peg L. Allison CLERK Flathead County District Court STATE OF MONTANA By: Rachael __________________ Parra 1 Robert B. Allison, District Judge DV-15-2023-0001393-MT Department No. 2 Allison, Robert B 2 Flathead County Justice Center 10.00 3 920 South Main Street, Suite 310 Kalispell, Montana 59901 4 Telephone: (406) 758-5906 5 MONTANA ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 6 FLATHEAD COUNTY 7 ) ) 8 Cause No. DV-23-1393 In re the November 7, 2023, ) 9 Kalispell Municipal General Election ) ) ORDER AND RATIONALE ON 10 ) PETITION TO ANNUL ELECTION ) 11 12 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Flathead County Election Administrator Debbie Pierson’s (“Petitioner”) Petition to Annul the November 7, 2023, Kalispell Municipal 13 General Election as to Wards 1, 2, 3, and 4 (“Petition”).1 Based on said Petition, Petitioner’s 14 now ripe Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Motion”), the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court, being fully advised in the premises, now enters the following: 15 ORDER 16 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 18 RATIONALE 19 “[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only where all material 20 allegations of fact are either admitted or not controverted in the pleadings, and only questions of law remain for determination by the court.” Montana Interventional & Diagnostic Radiology 21 Specialists, PLLC v. St. Peter’s Hosp., 381 Mont. 25, 31 (2015). Here, Petitioner alleges in her Motion that “[t]he ward boundaries approved by the City of Kalispell in December 2021 that are 22 utilized for ballot distribution were not updated in the election system prior to the election, 23 resulting in the distribution of ballots with incorrect wards for 8% (1,413) of the eligible voters in the City of Kalispell.” ECF No. 8, pp. 1-2. In response, Intervenor Ryan Hunter 24 (“Intervenor”) concedes this point. See ECF No. 3, p. 1 (“Flathead County conducted the 25 November 7th Kalispell City Council election using old Ward boundary maps, having failed to update their system with the new Ward boundaries. This resulted in a number of voters receiving 26 ballots for the wrong wards.”). Accordingly, the remaining questions are whether Petitioner has 27 1 The uncontested election for municipal judge that took place on November 7, 2023, is not 28 affected by ward boundaries because it is a city-wide race and thus remains valid. ECF No. 1, p. 3. 1  1 the authority to challenge the results of the Election and if so, whether the Election must be set aside. 2 § 13-36-101, MCA, states: 3 An elector may contest the right of any person to any nomination or election to 4 public office for which the elector has the right to vote if the elector believes that: (1) a deliberate, serious, and material violation of any provision of the law 5 relating to nominations or elections has occurred; 6 (2) the person was not, at the time of the election, eligible to be a candidate for the office; 7 (3) votes were cast illegally or were counted or canvassed in an erroneous or fraudulent manner. 8 9 Petitioner is thus well within her right to challenge the results of the November 7, 2023, Kalispell Municipal General Election (“Election”), although her office is at fault for conducting 10 the Election improperly in the first place. ECF No. 1, p. 1 (“[L]ess than one week before the election, it came to the attention of the Flathead County Election Department that some absentee 11 voters may have received ballots for incorrect wards. The Election Department investigated and 12 discovered in the coming days that the ward boundaries approved by the City of Kalispell in December 2021 had not been entered into the election system.”). It is also undoubted that votes 13 were counted in an erroneous manner. Id. at Ex. A, p. 2 (“1,413 [t]otal eligible voters impacted . . . 176 [t]otal voters receiving an incorrect ballot who VOTED.”). 14 However, § 13-36-101, MCA, must be read in conjunction with § 13-36-211, MCA, 15 which states: 16 The ground of contest specified in 13-36-101(3) may not be construed to 17 authorize a nomination or election to be set aside on account of illegal votes unless it appears: 18 (1) that the candidate or nominee whose right is contested had knowledge of or connived in the illegal votes; or 19 (2) that the number of illegal votes given to the person whose right to the 20 nomination or office is contested, if taken from the person, would reduce the number of legal votes for the person below the number of votes given to some 21 other person for the same nomination or office, after deducting the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person. 22 23 Petitioner proffers no evidence that Intervenor “had knowledge of or connived in the illegal votes,” resulting from ballots issued in accordance with outdated ward 24 boundaries. Moreover, Petitioner concedes that Intervenor “won the [Ward 3] election by 372 more votes than his opponent” and that “in Ward 3 there were 64 impacted voters 25 receiving an incorrect ballot who voted as stated in the 2023 Municipal General Election 26 Canvas Report.” ECF No. 8, p. 2. It follows that even if those 64 votes had gone against Intervenor, he would have still prevailed. Accordingly, “whatever voting irregularities 27 occurred . . . had no effect on [Intervenor]’s election.” Baker v. Bink, 223 Mont. 375, 378 (1986). 28 2  1 Petitioner also “does not dispute that Ward 4 was an uncontested race,” which means Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of § 13-36-211, MCA, to set aside that 2 election either. ECF No. 8, p. 2. As for Ward 1 and Ward 2, Intervenor’s recitations of 3 those elections are well taken. To wit: “In the case of the contested elections in Wards 1 and 2, [Petitioner’s] mistake could have been determinative in the outcome of those 4 elections.” ECF No. 3, p. 1. This is because in “Ward 1, a total of 80 votes separated the two candidates on the ballot. Of the votes cast in Ward 1, a total of 124 ballots were 5 impacted by the County’s mistake.” Id. “In Ward 2, a total of 109 votes separated the 6 two candidates on the ballot. Of the votes cast in Ward 2, a total of 155 ballots were impacted by the County’s mistake.” Id. Thus, § 13-36-211(2), MCA, mandates the 7 elections in Ward 1 and Ward 2 be set aside. In review: 8 9 o Ward 1: the Petition is GRANTED. 10 o Ward 2: the Petition is GANTED. 11 o Ward 3: the Petition is DENIED. 12 o Ward: 4: the Petition is DENIED. 13 14 DATED and electronically signed below: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Electronically Signed By: Hon. Judge Robert B. Allison Fri, Feb 16 2024 11:08:52 AM  201 1st Ave E Post Office Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7720 www.Kalispell.com To: Doug Russell, City Manager From: Susie Turner, Public Works Director Re: Solid Waste Master Planning Discussion Meeting Date: Febuary 26, 2024 Enclosed: 2024 Solid Waste Survey Summary Results BACKGROUND: During the January 22, 2024, work session, Public Works presented a comprehensive review of Kalispell's current solid waste services as part of the development of the Solid Waste Master Plan. The presentation encompassed an in-depth analysis of existing services, service and financial policies, as well as an examination of current costs and projected revenue requirements. Kalispell’s solid waste service is extensive, and staff is seeking Council insights and feedback during the upcoming work session discussion to shape the subsequent development phases of the master planning process. • Financial Policy – Annual Reserves at 40% of Operating Costs • Key rate design considerations 1. Ensure rate equity between services (Commercial vs Residential) • Alley Cleanup Services 1. Remain as is and develop rate schedule for alley collection costs – apply to alley customers only 2. Remain as is and residential rate schedule absorbs costs for all alley collections • Spring Cleanup Services – Curbside (90 Gallon) Customers 1. Remain as is and develop rate schedule for spring collection costs a. Apply to all customers or apply to only curbside customers 2. Increase service (2x year) and develop rate schedule for spring collection costs a. Apply to all customers or apply to only curbside customers • Funding for Additional City Service (Services benefits all City residents and businesses) 1. Develop rate schedule and charge only solid waste customers 2. Develop rate schedule and charge all city properties (includes proprieties without solid waste service) 3. Develop rate schedule and charge internal departments for service • Further Recycling Consideration 1. Yes or No • Further Pay-as-you-Throw (PAYT) Consideration 1. Yes or No • Fund Front Loader Transition 1. Develop rate schedule for commercial front load services To assist Staff and Council a survey was carried out to gain information on the topics listed above and the solid waste services being provided. A summary of the draft survey results is attached for reference. Additionally, the January 22,2024 work session presentation and slides are available for reference on the City website at the following link: AV Capture All. Survey Results & Analysis Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. was tasked Q7: Which of the following curbside services with creating a survey for the City of Kalispell, does your collection service provider offer? MT to evaluate residential views towards the City’s Solid Waste Master Plan. The following is Garbage 80% 48 an overview of the survey results which was Recycling 5% 3 conducted from January 16, 2024, to February Yard Trimmings 8% 5 14, 2024. There was a total of 486 respondents. Bulky Item 2% 1 Other 20% 12 Total Respondents 60 Q1: Are you responding to this survey as a: Q8: How frequently is your material collected? Residential Customer 93% 451 Weekly 70% 43 Business Owner/Manager 7% 35 Every other week 7% 4 Total Respondents 486 Other 23% 14 Total Respondents 61 Q2: Do you live in the City of Kalispell? Q10: Please indicate how you set out your Yes 89% 308 material for collection based on your home’s No 9% 31 configuration: I’m not sure 2% 8 Total Respondents 347 At the curb (roll out) 59% 196 In an alley 26% 85 In a shared container 15% 51 Q4: Are you a homeowner or a renter? Total Respondents 332 Homeowner 92% 318 Renter 8% 29 Q11: How often do you set out material outside Total Respondents 347 the 300/400-gallon containers? Every week 26% 21 Q5: Do you receive solid waste collection Every other week 9% 7 service from the City of Kalispell? Once per month 17% 14 Yes 79% 274 Every 6 months 15% 12 No 19% 65 Once per year 13% 11 I’m not sure 2% 8 Other 21% 17 Total Respondents 347 Total Respondents 82 Survey Results & Analysis Q12: On a scale of 1 – 5, rank your level of Q15: As part of its Spring Cleanup program the satisfaction with the current weekly garbage City collects reasonable amounts of yard programs and services offered by the City for trimmings, bulky items, and garbage from City single-family households. serviced curbside customers in a week-long (Alley Customers) special collection event. Are you aware of the Alley City’s Spring Cleanup Program? Garbage Cleanup (Curbside Customers) Very satisfied 63% 47 43% 34 Yes 57% 129 Somewhat No 30% 68 20% 15 23% 18 satisfied I would need more information 14% 31 Neutral 5% 4 19% 15 Total Respondents 228 Somewhat 7% 5 6% 7 dissatisfied Very Q17: How receptive would you be to having 3% 2 4% 3 dissatisfied recycling collection? I do not receive this 3% 2 5% 4 Very Receptive 63% 191 service Somewhat Receptive 11% 33 Total Neutral 8% 24 75 79 Respondents Somewhat Opposed 3% 10 Very Opposed 5% 14 Q14: On a scale of 1 – 5, rank your level of I would need more information to satisfaction with the current weekly garbage decide 10% 30 programs and services offered by the City for Total Respondents 302 single-family households. (Curbside Customers) Q18: If the City provided recycling collection, Spring how much more per year would you be willing Garbage Cleanup to pay for service? Very satisfied 65% 146 31% 68 Somewhat $50.00 26% 79 9% 20 18% 40 satisfied $100.00 21% 64 Neutral 10% 22 22% 49 $150.00 5% 14 Somewhat 2% 5 5% 10 $200.00 9% 28 dissatisfied I would not support a rate Very 4% 8 2% 5 increase for recycling service 39% 117 dissatisfied I do not Total Respondents 302 receive this 11% 24 22% 49 service Total 225 221 Respondents Survey Results & Analysis Q19: The City is considering options to provide Q21: The City provides a high level of service to equal levels of service to customers in the alleys customers in the alleys. What is the maximum compared to curbside customers. How receptive increase you would be willing to pay annually to would you be to having set out limits (e.g., not ensure all solid waste customers are equitably allowed to set out more than a specified number paying for alternative collection service? of items or cubic yards of material) on yard trimmings, and bulky items collected in the $15.00 24% 19 alleys? $20.00 8% 6 $25.00 11% 9 Very Receptive 10% 8 I would expect the rate for this Somewhat Receptive 25% 20 service to stay the same 58% 46 Neutral 9% 7 Total Respondents 80 Somewhat Opposed 9% 7 Very Opposed 23% 18 Q24: The City is considering options to provide I would need more information to more frequent “Cleanup” collection events to decide 25% 20 curbside customers. How receptive would you Total Respondents 80 be to having two scheduled “Cleanup” collection events per year (with set out limits) instead of Q20: How receptive would you be to reducing the annual spring cleanup event. the frequency of collection of yard trimmings and bulky items collected in the alleys to once Very Receptive 45% 100 per month? Somewhat Receptive 17% 37 Neutral 20% 45 Very Receptive 10% 8 Somewhat Opposed 0.5% 1 Somewhat Receptive 20% 16 Very Opposed 4% 8 Neutral 15% 12 I would need more information Somewhat Opposed 20% 16 to decide 14% 31 Very Opposed 35% 28 Total Respondents 222 I would need more information to decide 0% 0 Q25: If the City transitions to two “Cleanup” Total Respondents 80 events per year what is the maximum increase per year you would be willing to pay for service? $5.00 28% 63 $10.00 26% 57 $15.00 13% 29 I would not support a rate increase for recycling service 33% 73 Total Respondents 222 Survey Results & Analysis Commercial Sector Q29: Do you receive solid waste collection service from the City of Kalispell? Q26: What is your role within your business? Yes 60% 18 Company owner 63% 19 No 27% 8 Office manager 13% 4 I’m not sure 13% 4 Personnel manager 0% 0 Total Respondents 30 Sustainability/environmental manager 7% 2 Other 17% 5 Q30: The City is considering transitioning how Total Respondents 30 commercial customers are serviced to provide a safer and more efficient operation. If your business has the available space, how receptive Q27: Please select the statement that is would you be to transitioning to frontload applicable for your business: dumpsters and collection? My business is located within Very Receptive 40% 6 Kalispell City limits 73% 22 Somewhat Receptive 20% 3 My business is located outside the City limits but operates within Neutral 13% 2 Kalispell City limits 27% 8 Somewhat Opposed 0% 0 Total Respondents 30 Very Opposed 7% 1 I would need more information to decide 20% 3 Q28: How would you describe your Total Respondents 15 company/organization? Health Care and Social Q31: How much more would you be willing to Assistance 7% 2 pay per collection to receive frontload service? Retail Trade 10% 3 Professional Services (consulting, $1.00 0% 0 banking, real estate) 13% 4 $2.00 13% 2 Manufacturing/Industrial 3% 1 $5.00+ 13% 2 Transportation/Logistics 7% 2 I would not support a rate Educational Services 0% 0 increase 73% 11 Restaurant 0% 0 Total Respondents 15 Hospitality/Accommodation 7% 2 Construction 10% 3 Q32: What equipment do you use to store solid Non-Profit 10% 3 waste materials? Other 33% 10 Total Respondents 30 2 Cubic Yard Rear Load Dumpster 37% 7 300/400 Gallon Container 32% 6 Shared Container 32% 6 Total Respondents 19 Survey Results & Analysis Q33: How often is your dumpster/bin serviced per week? Once 74% 14 Twice 5% 1 Three 21% 4 Four 0% 0 Five 0% 0 Six 0% 0 Total Respondents 19 Q34: How satisfied are you with your current garbage collection services? Very satisfied 53% 10 Somewhat satisfied 16% 3 Neutral 11% 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 11% 2 Very dissatisfied 11% 2 Total Respondents 19 Survey Results & Analysis Demographic Questions Q36: If you would like to receive occasional updates about the ongoing Solid Waste Master Plan, please provide your email address. Total Respondents 156 Q37: Please select the following indicating your age range 18 and under 0% 0 19 – 29 5% 14 30 – 39 28% 86 40 – 49 26% 81 50 – 59 11% 35 60 and over 27% 84 Prefer not to disclose 4% 11 Total Respondents 311 Q38: How do you prefer to learn about City solid waste services and programs (e.g., changes to existing services, new services, reminders about upcoming events or service days, educational information, etc.)? Please check all that apply. City Press Release 40% 121 City Website 31% 95 https://www.kalispell.com/list.a spx (Direct email/text) 36% 109 Social media (e.g., Flathead 411, Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.) 63% 193 Flyers or notices posted in public places (e.g., the library) 15% 47 Total Respondents 304