[MissoulaGov] committee update 12-17-08

[Ryan Morton]

Thanks Bob.

 

Quibbling about framing may seem tedious, but I think it's important on the
development agreement issue.  Our claim is two-fold:  there are statutory
and constitutional limits on your discretion for annexation AND the
development agreement is an independent action that violates the applicant's
rights.

 

On annexations, I didn't say you were "obligated."  I said the statutes give
you a strong public policy reason to support annexation generally AND that
if you deny annexation a court can compel annexation under a particular
circumstance if the petitioner takes it to court.  I did mention that, on
first glance, CFT #1 seems to be such a circumstance.  If you interpret that
as an obligation, I guess that's ok (even if that was not my intent).
Ultimately, I just wanted to dispel the "we can require all the houses be
painted purple" mentality towards annexation.  It's wrong in both fact and
attitude while also contradicting a sound public policy sensibility.

 

I think if you had completed your policy making work prior to requiring
applicants to sign a development agreement (a requirement that I don't
believe you can do), you would have avoided this
policy-discussion-during-your-application-hearing mess.  On top of that, it
seems to be a distraction from the merits of this particular subdivision.
Having the policy in place prior to this subdivision would have been much
cleaner and given the applicant a fair hearing.  I'm beginning to question
whether having the development agreement required before you decide on the
appropriate development agreement policy has tainted the fairness of the
hearing as everyone is forced to discuss the legitimacy of this development
agreement (reasons for, conditions contained in, etc.) in lieu of important
discussions about the subdivision itself.  Can't you just consider the
subdivision, zoning, and annexation without the development agreement?  I'm
having trouble understanding the hang up.

 

I'm not going to repeat how "requiring the development agreement for
annexation" is an egregious violation of rights and of public policy
regarding voluntary, consensual contracts. but I have no problem reminding
you of the issue.

 

See you on Monday!


Ryan Morton, Government Affairs Director

The Missoula Building Industry Association

 

 

  _____  

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:36 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 12-17-08

 

Greetings,

We opened this morning with a discussion of the budget and the Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP).  Mr. Hendrickson had raised concern over the
debt financing approach to our large capital items and the impending
reduction in City tax revenue.  As we continue to finance more stuff our
debt payments eat up more and more of our CIP budget. There is not really
any reason for concern at this point but it is becoming clear that we will
be deferring some purchases over the next few years.

 

In PAZ we continued our discussion of Clark Fork Terrace #1. We started with
the piece about impact fees versus SIDs. A question had been raised as to
why we were wanting SID protest waivers for work to be done on the
intersection of speedway and highway 200 if we are also collecting impact
fees. Isn't that asking them to pay for it twice?  

The answer we were given is that the impact fees are intended for major
roadway improvements and that intersection probably wouldn't even qualify.
In addition, it is likely that the impact fees collected will be inadequate
for reconstruction so we will need to have an SID anyway.  Mr. Wilkins said
he doesn't like the SID protest waivers because he thinks people have a
constitutional right to protest.

It is important to understand the meaning of the protest waiver. If the
council proposes an SID and more than X% of the property owners protest the
SID, it then takes a 2/3 vote to pass the SID.  If a piece of property is
encumbered by an SID protest waiver it means that the owner of that property
cannot be counted towards the percent threshold that triggers the 2/3 vote.
It does not mean that the person cannot exercise their constitutional right
to free speech and protest the action of the council.

 

Most of us on the council cut our SID teeth on the England Blvd. SID. In
that case many of the homeowners were very upset because they had only
recently purchased their homes for about all they could afford. So the SID
was adding a monthly payment to their homes they thought was too much. Most
or all of them had bought their homes in Pleasantview from the developer and
not through a realtor. They said that they were never shown the plat with
the SID waiver printed on it.  Jon's comments pretty much echoed those
concerns.

 

Another issue had to do with the request to dedicate park land along the
second choice route for the Milwaukee road trail. The developer is asking us
to make it a conditional easement instead in case he can secure the first
choice route. The only problem is that they asked us to do that in Clark
Fork Terrace #2 and then they sued us for it.  The park dedication method of
getting the trail is a little more solid and the trust level is extremely
low. It is a lot of work for me to not assume when they open their mouths
they are lying.

 

We also discussed the proposed development agreement that we are making a
condition of annexation.  Ryan Morton from MBIA made arguments suggesting we
were legally obligated to annex the property. This is directly contradictory
to everything we have learned up to this point so I look forward to Mr.
Nugent's response. 

 

We also addressed a plat amendment on a small subdivision in East Missoula.
The discussion focused on how to best postpone tearing down a small house
behind the main house that was sitting right on the new property line. Ron
Ewert gave us the sob story of the old lady on the fixed income living in
the small house. In the end we approved language that satisfied the property
owner's wish to keep the little house until the new home is built. Jason
pointed out how nice it was that in this case the whole council was able to
recognize the value of an ADU (accessory dwelling unit).

 

After lunch we resumed PAZ with the discussion of the sign ordinance. Dave
and I brought this forward to address the issue of electronic video signs.
There have been a ton of these signs popping up all over town lately and we
want to update our code so we can address them in some way.  There was
language proposed in the new zoning rewrite so it made sense to use that as
a base. The other concern is that the sign ordinance would get lost inside
the larger zoning rewrite project and not really be noticed by the public or
get adequate consideration by council.

It turned out that our request for an interim urgency ordinance to regulate
electronic signs did set off some alarm bells for a number of commercial
interests. When I returned from lunch the chamber was full of slightly
panicked sign merchants and retailers. We also heard from folks who said
they were participating in the zoning rewrite and wanted us to hold off from
addressing this issue and allow them to address it in their process.  Dave
and I are in agreement that the testimony today suggests that this issue
will get adequate attention from the community in the zoning rewrite so we
can let it go for now. That process will potentially bring us an ordinance
as early as March. There's no point in us taking on a bunch of work if
others are already eager to do it. If for some reason the process bogs down
we can always bring the interim ordinance back to committee.

 

After PAZ we had Public Works. I had to leave after the first few minute but
we were discussing a significant increase in our sidewalk program for this
next year. Concrete prices have dropped to 2000 levels and there are
indications they will drop a bunch more. The contractors are pretty hungry
for work right now so we are going to try to get a bunch of jobs in while
the prices are good.

 

When I got back from the fifth grade concert we were in A&F discussing the
contract to hire a lobbyist for the city to represent us during the session.
We discussed how we would be kept informed on what they were doing and what
the status was of the various bills that concerned the city.  The session is
a logistical nightmare. There are something like 2600 bills introduced and
it all moves very fast. The Mayor's office has a volunteer intern working
with them this year to help organize the information.

 

Thanks for your interest, 

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

406-728-1052

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20081218/47f08c71/attachment.htm>