[MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

[Paula Hofmann]

Had a question about the Prius for the fire department.  Does the
department really need a car all to themselves?  Is it used that much?
Is there a City/County car pool where employees can check out cars for
City/County business?  Thanks!  Paula Hofmann

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 23:00 -0700, Bob Jaffe wrote:

> Greetings,

> 

> Dogs were on the agenda again this morning.  This time we were

> considering a proposal from the parks department to allow for the

> conservation lands to be designated as “voice restraint” areas.  Among

> the arguments for this change are this is already the common practice;

> most problems for staff revolve around human conflicts associated with

> enforcement rather than actual problems with dogs; dogs need places to

> run; the population likes walking with dogs off leash on conservation

> lands.

> 

> Some of the arguments against the change are that dogs are

> ill-mannered beasts no matter how much the owner claims they are under

> control; they chase and sometimes kill wildlife; they fight; they

> harass other people; some dog owners are irresponsible.

> 

> There were a few other clean up items in the proposal but the

> conservation land leash law was the meat of the discussion. We moved

> to set a public hearing to let the public weigh in again before making

> a decision. Based on the tone of the discussion the council will vote

> against allowing dogs off leash on the conservation lands. 

> 

> I am in support of the staff proposal that they should be allowed off

> leash except in particularly sensitive areas or for temporary periods

> when needed due to wildlife movement. I guess I see the conservation

> lands like the north hills and Mount Sentinel as part of the human

> environment. Like the “mixing zone” in the river below the sewage

> plant. It is sort of natural but the human impact is acknowledged and

> accepted to a limited degree.

> 

> I imagine Marilyn, who is our Lorax of Mt. Sentinel, may be horrified

> by that statement. But I think this human (and our dogs) impact on the

> conservation lands is part of the reason we need to keep up such a

> sustained effort to preserve and maintain their natural condition. It

> may sound like a contradiction but we don’t want conservation lands

> just to look at.  Clearly the best thing we could do to protect those

> lands is to close them to people. But we paid all that money for them

> because we want to walk around up there. So it’s not ideal from a

> conservation perspective, but as a community asset I think we need to

> put up with the dogs. 

> 

>  

> 

> In conservation committee we discussed the update to the master parks

> plan. I confess to being a bit distracted today so some of the events

> from the day are faded now.  My comments had to do with pocket parks

> and Ward six parks. These last few years the parks department has

> frowned upon small parks. They are more expensive to maintain. They

> would rather just get money from developers that can go toward

> enhancing the larger neighborhood parks.  But I like pocket parks.

> There are all sorts of places you can make them happen and they can be

> really nice.  So I was asking for some reconsideration of that policy.

> On some subdivisions they could make sense if they are to be

> maintained by the home owners association instead of the City. Pam

> brought up the example of little Mccormick park along railroad street.

> I was actually thinking more like the little thing at the end of

> Holmes street by the greenway trail.  

> 

> Regarding ward six, we know where the large land areas are that could

> someday become a park. In particular there is the forest service

> property. This is seriously underutilized property in the middle of

> town. Eventually they are going to sell it.  We should be making plans

> for how to obtain it.

> 

>  

> 

> There was no PAZ today since it was time for our quarterly joint

> meeting with the county commissioners to discuss the interlocal

> agreement for the office of planning and grants. We graciously give up

> our time slot for this meeting every three months.  

> 

> We heard another pitch from the crime victim advocates office. They

> were in a fiscal crisis last year when some funding did not renew.

> They managed to pull out of it this year but have tapped pretty much

> every resource available. In a year or two they will be in trouble

> again. They want us to start thinking about it now while it is not an

> emergency.  Maybe Obama will save us with new money from on high.

> 

> We also discussed the update to the growth policy. We have run into a

> problem with all the plans we have developed. They are supposed to get

> updated regularly. If we were going to do them all on a five year

> cycle it would require OPG to update ten plans per year.  That would

> require at least a few more FTE’s. So we need a new approach.

> 

> In regards to the growth policy Roger suggested we consider a whole

> different model. In some communities they have the thing down to a

> single poster. It succinctly states the goals, objectives and

> policies. Then they have electronic data with all the supporting

> material. The electronic data is constantly updated. 

> 

> The way we do it is we publish a big book that represents the way

> things are at a certain moment in time and then it is instantly

> outdated.

> 

>  

> 

> In A&F we appointed a couple of more people to the public art board.

> We also accepted a grant from FWP to build a trail connection up in

> the south hills that Jeff Stevens had worked hard to secure.  

> 

>  

> 

> In public works we bought a couple of vehicles. Just to make sure we

> didn’t fuss about the big pickup truck they combined it with the

> purchase of a Prius.  The Prius is for the fire department for when

> the go on road trips to training and conferences and the truck is for

> parking maintenance.

> 

>  

> 

> We finished the day with Committee of the Whole.  We had the

> administration’s legislative update. Ross Best came to the Monday

> meeting and he was  here today to complain about the public notice and

> involvement for the City’s lobbying efforts.  He heard that a

> SharePoint system had been developed for us to track bills, get

> updates from the lobbyist and comment.  He lamented over how this is

> all private and should be open to the public.  He complained that all

> the public knows is the two words on the agenda “Legislative Update.”

> There is no other additional info to know what is going on. Up until a

> couple of days ago this is the way it was for us too. We would see the

> two words on the agenda and the Mayor would come and give a verbal

> report. Other than whatever notes we took we would have nothing.

> 

>  

> 

> The new system is a little better but it is still pretty clunky. The

> way SharePoint has been implemented it is kind of like a really low

> end blogging platform. Each bill is like a discussion thread and then

> there are some comments. They are working on a way to make it all

> publicly accessible. All that is really needed is the list of bills

> the City is taking a position on. I haven’t really seen a whole lot in

> the comments that are valuable. The stuff from the lobbyist is

> generally comments like “I met with so and so today to discuss this.”

> Not really any useful insight into the status or process. I’m hoping

> there is actually something going on there for all the money we paid.

> 

>  

> 

> The other issue we discussed was the notification to the public for

> the zoning rewrite.  State law requires we run a legal ad and have a

> meeting that is open to the public.  Of course that does not meet

> Missoula standards for transparent government.  The planning office

> has held endless public meetings and this whole zoning rewrite process

> has had tons of press but there is a faction that believes that if

> only the community knew what was going on they would come unglued.  So

> in the tireless effort to provide opportunity to become civically

> engaged we discussed what kind of mailing could be sent to every

> property owner in Missoula.  The idea is that we could compose

> something on a half page size post card that would outline all the

> substantive changes and let folks know how to participate. It will

> probably cost around $15,000.  Next week OPG will come back with a

> sample of the mailing. There is some concern about the content. Some

> of the folks are convinced the sky is falling and the fact that we are

> not ringing the alarm bells is all the more evidence that we are

> complicate with the conspiracy. Some of us disagree with that opinion.

> So it is important how this thing gets written.

> 

>  

> 

> Once again I thank you for your interest and your indulgence of my

> rant. I apologize in advance to those I have offended and for any

> inaccuracies or omissions. 

> 

>  

> 

>  

> 

> Bob Jaffe

> 

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

> 

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

> 

> 406-728-1052

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

> 

> 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.