[MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

[Beverly]

A conservation lands management plan is underway in the near future.  Would this planning process address the concerns about dogs?
Beverly Dupree

--- On Wed, 1/28/09, Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> wrote:
From: Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 10:00 PM




 
 






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. 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090129/812709de/attachment.htm>