[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 12-3-08

[Bob Jaffe]

Greetings,

Bright and early this morning to learn about Tasers.  The police were
awarded a grant that they wanted to apply towards buying more Tasers.
The grant requires acceptance by the governing body.  Stacy sent this
back to committee because there was some concern about how Tasers are
used. Before approving the purchase of more of these things we wanted
assurances that they are not being abused. Clearly it is better to
temporarily paralyze someone with an electric shock than it is to shoot
them dead. But on the other hand if an officer has the option of Tasing
a non-cooperative person, why bother to take the time and effort to use
diplomacy to achieve compliance?  

Tasers have been in use in Missoula for about four years. In that time
they have been deployed 138 times. 45 of those were display only. They
only had to show the thing to the suspect to gain compliance. Here are
some links to the information provided:

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-08/TaserReportC
hrisOdlin.pdf

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-08/TaserUsageDa
ta.pdf

Taser MMIA Memo
<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-08/TaserMMIAMe
mo.pdf> 

7.10 Use of Force
<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-08/710UseOfFor
ce20020301.pdf> 

7.20 Taser Policy
<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-08/720Taser200
80101.pdf> 

 

I was satisfied that the police are doing what they can to make sure the
Tasers are being used responsibly. The vote to support the grant was
unanimous.  I believe Stacy will be making a referral for a report on
the "Force Policy" in general.

 

In conservation we heard an extended report on the development plan for
Fort Missoula.  Nothing particularly new from last time but a little
more detail.  There will be a public hearing on the adoption of the park
plan this Monday. The total estimated price tag for the improvements is
about $20 million.  The highlight of the whole meeting was the public
comment offered by Tate Jones of the Historical Museum. He pointed out
the grand works accomplished by our community at a time when the people
were nowhere near as affluent as we are today. What has changed?
Certainly things were a lot rougher in Missoula a century ago when the
nice part of the court house was built. How could they afford to build
such nice stuff back then? Were attitudes about quality and longevity
that much different then or was there some fundamental difference in the
economics of construction?

 

Next we discussed the rezone of the parcel south of the Elbow Room bar.
The owners of the Elbow Room currently lease the land where the bar is
located. But they own the other half of the block to the south. They are
requesting a CLB (liquor and gambling) overlay on the entire half block.
That's a pretty depressing few blocks right there between Stephens and
Russell. From the aerial photo you can see that the entire area is paved
and there are like two trees. There are CLB's all over the place. Some
in use and some not. For example the post office parking lot has a CLB
overlay. There was much apprehension about creating another CLB
(especially such a large one) in the neighborhood without removing some
of the others. This area is also a redevelopment district and the
council wanted to hear from MRA on what their hopes were for the
neighborhood.

 

Our other scheduled item was the appeal on the DRB decision regarding
the sign request for the Montana Lil's casino going in at the corner of
Reserve and Brooks.  The DRB gave them some of what they wanted so they
appealed to the council for the rest. My take was that it was more
likely the council would take away what DRB gave them than give them the
remainder. Apparently the applicant had the same concern and withdrew
their appeal. My understanding is they have resubmitted a sign package
that is in compliance with the ordinance.

 

While I'm on the subject of signs, Mr. Wilkins informed us all of a sign
proposal from Sentinel High School. They want to put up one of those
video display signs that exceeds the size limit allowed in our code and
they intent to display commercial advertising on the sign. Offsite
advertising is also completely against the sign ordinance. But since
they are a school they are not subject to our zoning rules so they can
pretty much do what they want.  If you think that is offensive maybe you
should let Sentinel or the school board know. 

 

After lunch we started with Public Works. The main item of discussion
was the vacation of a portion of Nora Street. The old dairy property on
the corner of Toole and Spruce is being redeveloped. The area that is
the current parking lot at the end of the little triangle there is
actually public right of way.  They are asking for it to be formally
vacated. They are going to put in substantial pedestrian and aesthetic
improvements to the site.

 

After public works we had another PAZ session to discuss a resolution to
establish a policy regarding development agreements. We have required
development agreements recently on projects where we are annexing a
parcel that is going to be used for a condominium or multifamily project
rather than be subdivided. This way we can place the various conditions
that would normally be part of subdivision approval into the development
agreement since there isn't going to be any subdivision.  The new policy
would call for development agreements to be used on all annexation and
zoning requests. This way the various conditions and exactions that
would normally fall into subdivision review would instead be placed in
the development agreement. Then, if the developer wants to sue us they
would be arguing contract law instead of land use law. We are much more
protected in contract law. Annexation and zoning are discretionary for
the council. No one has a right to be annexed or to have their zoning
changed. So if they want those things they can enter into a contract
with the city to establish the conditions that will be required. 

Another aspect of the policy is to start requiring fees in lieu of
impact fees for developments that request contract sewer. So if we give
them contract sewer and don't annex they are currently exempt from
impact fees. The new policy ends that. For now on developments that hook
up to the sewer but don't get annexed will still have to pay the
equivalent of the impact fee. That money will then be put aside until
they do annex so we will have some cash to then do improvements without
having to fight over it with the current residents. 

This is all common practice in other states and in other cities around
Montana. I'm not sure why it has taken us so long to catch on.

 

Thanks for your interest,  

 

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us <mailto:bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> 

406-728-1052

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20081203/58443499/attachment.htm>