[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 31, Issue 10

[Brent Campbell]

Bob,

Phasing is commonly done.  The environmental document defines the
envelop of impacts.  As long as you are within that envelop of impacts
you are ok.  We have been phasing the construction of Highway 93 for
years based on funding availability.


Brent Campbell, P.E.
President / CEO
WGM Group, Inc.
http://www.wgmgroup.com


-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of
missoulagov-request at cmslists.com
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 12:00 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 31, Issue 10

Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to
	missoulagov at cmslists.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
	missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Committee Update 9-24-08 (Alex Taft)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:07:28 -0600
From: Alex Taft <alextaft9 at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9-24-08
To: Bob Jaffe <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <BLU136-W122926EEFF3CB109783303EB400 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Bob,
RE: Russell and 3rd.  In my many years dealing with EISs I've never
heard of the phasing idea.  The EIS process (which I disagree with)
requires that you predict the future precisely and then provide a road
to a scale that meets the prediction.  The way around that process is to
emphasize other aspects of the purpose and need statement that deal with
community character and build what most in the community want. 


Alex

Alex Taft
439 Connell Ave.
Missoula, MT 59801
406-218-8438


________________________________

> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:04:33 -0600

> From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9-24-08

> 

> Greetings,

> Today was one of the more content rich council days we have had in a

while. I'll try to do it justice here.

> We started with Public Safety and a discussion with the Bike/Ped

board.  Some highlights were that we (at least Stacy and I) would like
them to continue to review subdivisions and submit comment encouraging
complete streets. Developers are often trying to skimp on bike/ped
improvements so it is good to have more eyes watching for that sort of
stuff. We also want them to continue looking for infrastructure
improvements and working with Public Works to get them done.

> 

> In Conservation we met with the Greenhouse Gas and conservation Team.

They were putting forward an idea for the city to sell Green Tags. These
are essentially a sort of carbon credit where a person can buy a unit of
power from a green power production project. The whole system is audited
and certified. They want the city to become a reseller of the credits.
We get a cut which would go to fund city conservation programs.  There
were a lot of questions like "Why would someone do this?"  The answer is
that it is a voluntary way to support clean energy. If you want to have
green power for your house this is an alternative for actually
purchasing and installing a wind or solar system. Of course this takes
the long term energy cost savings out of the picture. But if you want to
do it for purely social responsibility sorts of reasons this is an
option. In some ways it is more cost effective than installing your own
system. A megawatt hour greentag costs something like $20. The average
American home uses something like 10 megawatt hours per year. So it
would cost $200/year to have your home use green power. It probably
costs much more than that to actually install a system on your house.

> Of course you don't really know where the 10 megawatts of electrons

going to your house actually come from. But you can certify that 10
megawatts of green power going into the grid were the ones you paid for.

> From a business perspective it may be a little easier to understand.

If you want to be able to say that your business is run on green power
you can do it through green tags instead of actually investing in an
alternative energy system. Besides the social conscience issues you get
to use it in your advertising. When tied to some kind of capitalist
motive it may make more sense.

> The committee was skeptical and had a number of questions. Personally

I think it is a good idea. I could maybe see using it. I like to fly
east to visit my family. The carbon footprint issues around this
practice weigh on my conscience. Depending on how I'm feeling at the
moment about my disposable income I could be persuaded to buy into some
kind of offset scheme. Its possible there are enough people in Missoula
that would get behind something like this to make it worth while. I was
wanting more information on how the money gets applied by the producer.
Is it really part of the balance sheet when developing these projects?
Does it really influence the creation of more green energy? I also
wanted to know how it plays out for the homeowner. Is it more or less
expensive to just build your own green power solution?

> 

> The other issue we took up was a proposal to reduce the City's fuel

and power consumption to 90% of the 2008 level by 2011.  The resolution
didn't get into specifics but directed the Mayor to figure out how to
get us there.  John Hendrickson seemed to argue there was no point to
the thing since it had no teeth. A number of us agree with that and
would like to amend it so it does have teeth. Possibly tie it to other
aspects of department funding. Maybe have incentives and punishments
figured in. Jack Stucky pointed out that sometimes it is hard to
control. If we get a huge snow year the plows are out more than average
and we use more fuel. So we would need some way to allow for that sort
of thing. But that's all for the Mayor to figure out. We just set
policy. Its his job to implement it.

> Mr. Wilkins appeared to be objecting to it with a rant about older

people needing the heat turned up and how they (greenhouse committee)
just come back here with a thing for the city to do but they aren't
doing anything to help the people. As usual after taking his stand he
left the room for a smoke so he missed the rest of the discussion. In
the end the vote was for setting a public hearing to discuss the
resolution. It passed with Marilyn, Ed, Myself, Stacy, Pam, Jason, and
Dave voting for it and Renee, Dick, Lynn, and John voting against. I
think Jon was still out front.  I don't understand why they are apposed
to a conservation effort when they also voted against the budget because
the city wasn't doing enough to tighten its belt. At $4.00/gallon you
would think energy conservation would have an appeal to the self styled
budget hawks.

> 

> We covered a few items in PAz. (my z key is broken on this computer so

I have to copy and paste them. I can't find a capped z right now) We did
a historic preservation interview, We then considered the annexation for
Flynn Ranch number 2. The mention of Flynn Ranch raised the council's
hackles but in the end we voted for the resolution of intention to
"consider" the annexation of the property. We would only do it with the
word "consider" inserted just so everyone knew it was not a foregone
conclusion that we would accept this thing.

> 

> Then we set a public hearing for the new park land dedication

regulations. These went to planning board just last night. The planning
board voted to postpone the decision until it could be rolled into the
big zoning rewrite project. I'm withholding judgment on that until I
read the minutes and hear the testimony at the public meeting but I'm
not so inclined to push everything out into the big rewrite.  If we
implement it now the rewrite will give us version two which should have
the bugs worked out. Setting the public hearing also passed on
non-partisan lines.

> 

> Our last item was the update on the townhouse rule. When we set that

up a couple of years ago we asked for an update in 18 months. It has
been about two years now but we looked at a number of projects that are
in the process of being built under the rule which allows for attached
housing on individual lots.  No one has tried to do more than a duplex
so far and the prices looked pretty high to me. The MOR and MBIA were
going to get back to us on how the prices compared to single family
units in the same subdivision and what the difference in square foot
cost is for these units.

> 

> After lunch we had a couple hours of public works.  We learned that

work will begin on the section of Miller Creek from Briggs to 93. They
will be changing the lane configurations to allow for a right turn lane
and more multiple lane stacking at the intersection.  The work will be
done at night to cut down on traffic delays. It should take three nights
to get it done.

> We also learned that there is some kind of snag in the right of way

acquisition process for the Miller Creek Y project that may even push
into construction delays next year. We will learn more about that one at
a future meeting.

> Then we talked about Rattlesnake valley speed limits. The public works

department wants them faster. Most of the public wants them slower. The
proposal is to set them to 25 for the full length of rattlesnake drive
and Greenough. Currently there are portions set at 35. We have received
quite a bit of public comment on this. A few saying 35 is good but the
vast majority advocating for 25.

> 

> Next we heard a presentation from HKM on the 3rd and Russell project.

We got to ask some questions. We further refined the peer review RFP but
were not ready to advance it to council.  A new twist that came out
today for me was that the preferred alternative defines the biggest
thing we can build. It doesn't mean we actually have to build that. We
could start out with smaller intersections and then expand them at some
later date. To me this contradicts what we were told before that once
there is a record of decision for a preferred alternative that is the
only thing we can build with federal money.

> This phasing idea will most likely be the only way a council majority

will support any actual work getting done on this project.  Work needs
to be done to figure out how to incorporate this into the final EIS.

> 

> Thanks for your interest,

> 

> Bob Jaffe



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But
posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org List Serve hosting
provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 

End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 31, Issue 10
*******************************************