[MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

[John Torma]

Bob, thanks once again for your reports on Council Committee work.  The value of your efforts in this regard is immeasurable.  And you have nothing to apologize for; the comments that you, as a thinking & feeling human being, add to the "facts" of these meetings provide for your appreciative readers a perspective and context that is most useful.  All of us have the right to agree or disagree with what you write, and we also have the responsibility to do so as respectfully as you have done.

I was amazed when I learned at the December Zonong Update meeting the extensive amount of public notice that OPG had provided before that meeting.  I am not amazed that there is no huge hue and cry of objection to the progressive policy changes that are being proposed for our land use regulations.  The feedback that I have seen at the public meetings has been much more of support than objection.  Let's not confuse volume for quantity.

John Torma




________________________________
From: Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:00:54 PM
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09


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


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090128/6c42a839/attachment.htm>