[MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

[Thompson, Ken]

It is a shame that all dog owners get thrown together and stereotyped in
these kind of debates.  And it isn't fair.  I appreciate your
perspective Bob.  There are appropriate places and times for dogs
off-leash.  We responsible and thoughtful dog owners have to deal with
this and it gets truly old......

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Marilyn Marler
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:58 AM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

 

Serenity now.

 

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Bob Jaffe <mailto:BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>  

	To: missoulagov at cmslists.com 

	Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:00 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

	
________________________________


	_______________________________________________
	-----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/c5c2bc27/attachment.htm>