[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 17

[Brent Campbell]

Please make sure we include the parks from the Downtown Master Plan in
the Parks Plan.

If we want to turn plans into reality, we need to work on the revenue
side of the equation.

Let us know how we can help in that regard.


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: Friday, January 30, 2009 12:00 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 17

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 1-28-09 (Jim McGrath)
   2. Re: committee update 1-28-09 (Jed Taylor)
   3. Re: committee update 1-28-09 (Jim McGrath)
   4. Re: committee update 1-28-09 (Heather McMilin)
   5. re Missoula Committee update Dogs (Carolyn Walker)
   6. Re: committee update 1-28-09 (Jason Wiener)
   7. cats & dogs & stewardship (Marilyn Marler)
   8. Re: cats & dogs & stewardship (Geoff Badenoch)


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

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:20:47 -0700
From: "Jim McGrath" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09
To: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>,
<missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <92B4830B2B5E6E43B04109A6DFB96F96C9DFDF at mha1.MHA.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I would like to NOT weigh in on the dogs question. :-)

 

Your reference to the pocket park at Holmes and Phillips is an
interesting case. Only a small fraction of it is parkland. Most of it is
unvacated right of way - where Holmes street is platted to continue
south. Also, the county had some land (maybe they had the park) and
probably MRL right of way, too. And a piece was an unusable fraction of
a lot privately owned.

 

The neighborhood people basically took over the un-used space and
developed the little park area. When the greenway went through (the
blacktop trail alongside the MRL) it became more useful as park and was
developed more.

 

I'm sure I'm leaving out or getting wrong some of the subtle details of
this history. But my point (if any) is that it represents a creative
approach to creating these parks. It made use of a variety of tenures,
ownerships and rights. It did not involve exactions from landowners
(though in the end one or two relinquished rights voluntarily), nor did
it call for much city funds. While it's a fairly unique situation, there
are lessons that can be learned. 

 

For example, in places where we feel parkland is short, is there road
right of way (even paved) that can become parkland? 

 

I don't recall was is happening on the triangle at Railroad/Spruce/Nora
- the vacant lot across from the Darigold. There was some interest in
making a park there. Part of that triangle -used to park milk trucks
on-was Nora street right-of-way. The actual lot was much smaller and
impossible to use for much of anything.

 

How many other places can we find those opportunities?

 

By the way, in the case of Holmes street, one the most challenging
players to deal with to make the park happen was the parks department.

 

________________________________

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:01 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
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/20090129/3b3ba
e84/attachment-0001.htm 

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

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:43:15 -0700
From: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09
To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <8B593E68C8834D8E804E4EEEECBFA0BF at ryan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

A couple things for the list.
 
I think the concept of using a communications tool to better share ideas
and
activities can only be beneficial to both the Council and the public.
As
you're probably aware, though, there are better solutions than
SharePoint, a
typical M$ product that does nothing well except provide a revenue
stream
for Redmond from those who only consider M$ products.  For instance, the
City could offer a phpBB-based collection of forums (see
http://www.phpbb.com/) where some areas are view-only for the public and
others are specifically designed for public participation.  Using such a
solution would address any and all concerns about 'sunshine', allow
controlled participation where appropriate, allow anyone to view
discussions, provide an archive of discussions, and allow for even
greater
public participation.  Oh, and it's free, too.  And Open Source, so it's
modifiable.  As someone who participates in a variety of phpBB-based
forums,
it's easy for me to imagine how beneficial such a system would be to the
City in terms of increasing openness, communication, participation, and
documentation.  I would encourage the Council to look into this,
especially
since someone's already investing time and money in SharePoint.
 
And speaking of investing money....  The Council voted on Monday to
spend
$186k of the public's money on a peer review of the Russell & 3rd EIS,
right?  So what, exactly, are the citizens of Missoula getting for this
expense?  We already know what transportation engineers (people who love
to
build roads) favor, and we already know that there's considerable public
sentiment against so much asphalt as well as its effect on the
neighborhood
south of 3rd street.  And we already know that there's a well-considered
counter-proposal (the 3+ plan) available.  Is this expense simply a CYA
project to protect the decision-makers from the public fallout that's
sure
to result if the preferred solution in the EIS is actually constructed?
Is
there a reasonable expectation that the peer review is going to produce
a
recommendation that's different from the EIS?  Will a part of this $186k
peer review include an analysis of the 3+ plan and a
compare-and-contrast of
the plusses and minuses amongst the current EIS preferred solution, the
3+
plan, and whatever else the peer review consultancy comes up with?
 
I would appreciate it greatly if someone could explain simply and
clearly
what $186k is buying that Missoula doesn't already have.
 
Thanks.
 
 
 

  _____  

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 23:01
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09



Greetings,

 

<snip>  

 

 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.

 

<snip> 

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

 <mailto:bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

406-728-1052

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090129/6dbbb
ced/attachment-0001.htm 

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

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:11:57 -0700
From: "Jim McGrath" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09
To: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>,	<missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <92B4830B2B5E6E43B04109A6DFB96F96C9DFF1 at mha1.MHA.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The current situation is that if the city does not choose to build the
preferred solution they cannot get any money from the highway department
to build anything else. I cannot speak to the possibility that a peer
review would generate a new preferred solution or otherwise allow the
city to choose another solution. The no-build of course is always
available but very undesirable. 

 

 

________________________________

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jed Taylor
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:43 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

 

A couple things for the list.

 

I think the concept of using a communications tool to better share ideas
and activities can only be beneficial to both the Council and the
public.  As you're probably aware, though, there are better solutions
than SharePoint, a typical M$ product that does nothing well except
provide a revenue stream for Redmond from those who only consider M$
products.  For instance, the City could offer a phpBB-based collection
of forums (see http://www.phpbb.com/) where some areas are view-only for
the public and others are specifically designed for public
participation.  Using such a solution would address any and all concerns
about 'sunshine', allow controlled participation where appropriate,
allow anyone to view discussions, provide an archive of discussions, and
allow for even greater public participation.  Oh, and it's free, too.
And Open Source, so it's modifiable.  As someone who participates in a
variety of phpBB-based forums, it's easy for me to imagine how
beneficial such a system would be to the City in terms of increasing
openness, communication, participation, and documentation.  I would
encourage the Council to look into this, especially since someone's
already investing time and money in SharePoint.

 

And speaking of investing money....  The Council voted on Monday to
spend $186k of the public's money on a peer review of the Russell & 3rd
EIS, right?  So what, exactly, are the citizens of Missoula getting for
this expense?  We already know what transportation engineers (people who
love to build roads) favor, and we already know that there's
considerable public sentiment against so much asphalt as well as its
effect on the neighborhood south of 3rd street.  And we already know
that there's a well-considered counter-proposal (the 3+ plan) available.
Is this expense simply a CYA project to protect the decision-makers from
the public fallout that's sure to result if the preferred solution in
the EIS is actually constructed?  Is there a reasonable expectation that
the peer review is going to produce a recommendation that's different
from the EIS?  Will a part of this $186k peer review include an analysis
of the 3+ plan and a compare-and-contrast of the plusses and minuses
amongst the current EIS preferred solution, the 3+ plan, and whatever
else the peer review consultancy comes up with?

 

I would appreciate it greatly if someone could explain simply and
clearly what $186k is buying that Missoula doesn't already have.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 23:01
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

Greetings,

 

<snip> 

 

 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.

 

<snip>

 

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/20090129/9b0d8
6ba/attachment-0001.htm 

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

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:17:58 -0700
From: "Heather McMilin" <heather at homeword.org>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09
To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <820445D8F85B4DB0B7F3481F4C7EF4CC at homeWRD.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I too would like to weigh in on the dog discussion.  

 

I am in 100% support of LaNette and Ken's observations and
recommendations
below.  My experience on Missoula's conversation lands is similar.  The
few
negative instances I have ever witnessed in my 11 years here in Missoula
are
far outweighed by the positive.  The benefit of the conservation lands
and
Missoula's dog friendly approach are a benefit to my entire family,
human
and dog alike.

 

I would have no problem using a leash in the first 200 yards.  I have
found
most challenges come from territory issues around loading and unloading
from
our vehicles.  We tend to use a leash for the first leg of our journey
anyway.  I believe most responsible dog owners would agree.  I would be
happy to use this and any other common sense "middle ground" approaches
to
alleviate concerns the general public may have about our current usage.


 

Please know there are many responsible people owned by dogs in our
community.  We walk our dogs responsibly, pick up poop religiously, and
wish
to find an appropriate balance between our dogs and our conservation
lands.
We love both very much.

 

Thank you for listening. 

 

Heather McMilin

homeWORD Housing Development Director

  _____  

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of LaNette Diaz
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:48 AM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

 

I would like to weigh in on the dog discussion:
 
I walk my dog 5 days a week every day after work on Missoula
conservation
lands. I love that Missuola has created the space for dogs to be off
leash.
Dogs like people need exercise to stay healthy and happy. A tired dog is
a
happy and obediant dog. 
 
Over the approximately 260 days a year that I am out with my dog on
Missoula
conservation lands I encounter the "not-so-friendly" dog about 3 times a
year. I encounter dogs that chase wildlife about 8 times a year. 
 
On the flip-side I see hundreds of socially trained dogs that respect
other
dogs and wildlife so much more than the negative of side. Punishing the
socially trained dogs, which out-weigh the "not-so-friendly" dog doesn't
seem right. 
 
I support a the idea of voice restraint areas on conservation lands,
with
the first 200 yards from the trailhead being onleash (this is were
encounters between dogs occur, because many dogs are territorial of
their
space which is the vehicle they came in). Enforcing the 200 yard rule is
much easier and within Missoula's resources whereas, enforing that dogs
stay
on leashes on all conservation lands would be difficult to enforce. I
would
rather see a rule that can be enforced be applied, than a rule that
punishes
so many good dogs and is hard to enforce.
 
Thanks for Listening,
LaNette

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Thompson, Ken
<Ken.Thompson at mso.umt.edu>
wrote:

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
<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/> .


_______________________________________________
-----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
<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/> . 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090129/a466c
9c3/attachment-0001.htm 

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

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:39:37 -0700
From: Carolyn Walker <magpiewy at mac.com>
Subject: [MissoulaGov] re Missoula Committee update Dogs
To: City Council Missoula <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <4E9AB763-B97A-4DED-A25E-C9E2C29B6EBC at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Carolyn Walker <magpiewy at mac.com>  
wrote:
Thanks LaNette,
I too walk my dog 5 to 6 times a week.   I need to use my walking  
sticks as I have bad knees and have a hip prosthesis.  Falling is  
scary and dangerous.  It is very hard to use a leash when I walk my  
dog.   I go to State Lands and Pattee Canyon Crazy Canyon.  I rarely  
use city parks for this reason.  In any case I ALWAYS pick up after  
my dog unless he goes under a big bush.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090129/baeec
83c/attachment-0001.htm 

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

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:10:44 -0700
From: "Jason Wiener" <JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09
To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID:
	
<689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A30C024A8E at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

A couple of notes:

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath




> I would like to NOT weigh in on the dogs question. J


 

Amen. Though I will eventually have to do so, I sure didn't run because
I wanted to spend time regulating the presence, absence or behavior of
small animals. I guess the chicken shit should have tipped me off
though, huh? 

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jed Taylor




> And speaking of investing money....  The Council voted on Monday to

spend $186k of the public's money on a peer review of the Russell & 3rd
EIS, right?  So what, exactly, are the citizens of Missoula getting for
this expense?  We already know what transportation engineers (people who
love to build roads) favor, and we already know that there's
considerable public sentiment against so much asphalt as well as its
effect on the neighborhood south of 3rd street.  And we already know
that there's a well-considered counter-proposal (the 3+ plan) available.
Is this expense simply a CYA project to protect the decision-makers from
the public fallout that's sure to result if the preferred solution in
the EIS is actually constructed?  Is there a reasonable expectation that
the peer review is going to produce a recommendation that's different
from the EIS?  Will a part of this $186k peer review include an analysis
of the 3+ plan and a compare-and-contrast of the plusses and minuses
amongst the current EIS preferred solution, the 3+ plan, and whatever
else the peer review consultancy comes up with?

 


> I would appreciate it greatly if someone could explain simply and

clearly what $186k is buying that Missoula doesn't already have.

 

Now this, on the other hand, is exactly why I got involved.

 

The purpose of the peer review is to get the enormous volume of comments
received, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement's analysis,
reviewed by people with the technical expertise to move the prime
consultants and Montana Dept of Transportation to a different solution
and no commitment to the conclusions that have already been drawn. 3+
Plus for Russell has not been examined as thoroughly as the alternatives
in the DEIS; this peer review gives it an equitable review by people who
have no stake in validating or upending the contents of the DEIS. I'll
be riding herd on the review at every step to see that people who do
have that stake don't capture the peer review, bury contrary findings or
constrain the questions so only their answers can come out. If, at the
end, I'm satisfied that a rational and open-minded approach that
correctly balances the competing values at stake is dictating the
design, I'll work to convince others of the same and get that built.
Unless you'd rather put a bond issue on the ballot to build 3+ (and
finance the transit improvements necessary to make it work) without any
federal money, or throw your hands up and keep what we've got, the only
way out of the National Environmental Policy Act process is through it.

 

$186,000 is a lot of money. In a $40 million project, however, it is
less than .5% of the project budget. If even one turn lane drops out of
the preferred alternative, the study pays for itself in eliminated
construction costs. But, obviously, many people are looking for
something more transformational from the peer review. The benefits of
that will be two-fold: first, an improved design for the road, and
second, education for MDT about how to conceive of and construct an
urban arterial that will benefit future projects here and elsewhere.

 

If you want more details on what's going to be delivered, the contract
that passed (attached text omits one amendment from the floor) and its
minute parsing of project costs is at
ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/packets/council/2009/2009-01-12/Referrals/HK
MPeerReviewAmend4.pdf and the response to the RFP for the firm selected
to do the work is at
ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Documents/Public%20Works/Projects/Russell-3r
d/Traffic_Engineering_Services_-_Proposals/Kittelson%20&%20Associates/98
87_ProposalKittelson.pdf.

 

Thanks for your interest,

J.

 

*******

Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One

1238 Jackson St.

Missoula, MT 59802

(406) 542-3232

jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090129/fbafc
55d/attachment-0001.htm 

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

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:16:02 -0700
From: "Marilyn Marler" <marler at bigsky.net>
Subject: [MissoulaGov] cats & dogs & stewardship
To: "Jason Wiener" <JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us>,
	<missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <A76863C12273459DA923613047FA137F at marlerb5ce640b>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

    Now that I've taken a full day to decompress from Bob's description
of the "dogs off leash" discussion, I can cheerfully say that, unlike
Jason (apparently) I *did* run for council at least in part because of
my interest in conservation issues and good stewardship of natural areas
and wildlife.
    Cats roaming free in town *do* have negative impacts to native
wildlife. They kill a lot of birds. If only we could train them to kill
starlings and house sparrows, but we can't. They just as happily eat
migratory warblers or northern flickers (our neighbors' cat killed a
flicker just recently). Birds have enough issues with habitat loss; do
we have to also accept that our pets "need" to eat them?  Cats can hunt
even with bells, even if they are de-clawed. You might not see it, but
it happens.  Denial is not a river in Egypt, as they say.  And I'm not
even getting into general bad cat behavior like pooping in garden beds
and so on, which is a legitimate quality of life issue. We need to move
towards cats as indoor pets, although I don't think its appropriate for
government to require it.  You can't have it both ways- be an advocate
of local wildlife and an advocate of outdoor unsupervised cats. (note: I
have 3 rescued cats who I love dearly).
    Dogs off leash in our conservation areas *do* have negative impacts
to native wildlife.  One person wrote to this list serve that she saw
"only" 8 incidents per year of dogs harrassing wildlife.  I did some
math and if one person who spends 520 hours per year on one area of open
space sees 8 incidents per year, and you expand that to cover 8 hours a
day for 260 days, and then expand that to 4 conservation areas (North
Hills, Mt Sentinel, L trail, Lincoln Hills), then someone's dog is
harassing wildlife about avery 3rd day. I think that is very
conservative because 1) a lot happens out of eyesight, and 2) there are
more than 8 hours per day that people are walking dogs on conservation
areas, and 3) you could probably divide those conservation areas each
again for a multiplyer of 8 instead of 4. So conservatively, every other
day.
    Bob, you included some obnoxiuos descriptions of arguements in favor
of leashed dogs. You did not include Pam's suggestion that dogs off
leash harassing wildlife might be a positive thing because we have too
many urban deer.  If we are going to do something about our urban deer
population, I really hope we can aspire to do something humane and
productive, rather than letting dogs run them to death.
    Again, I'm only focusing on conservation/stewardship issues here.
Not social issues of whether I want someone's dog tripping me while I'm
out for a run (as happens almost every time I run on the river trail
which is technically a leash area but I'm good natured so I deal with
it), or stealing my food when I'm working on Mt Sentinel. (note: I love
dogs)
    And I'll close with something that is more of a topic for a book I'm
writing in my head- Can we please start moving beyond a false dichotomy
of Human Influenced vs Non Human Influenced places?  The world is human
influenced.  Let's make mindful choices always. We CAN have our pets but
respect wildlife. We CAN have landscaping that makes room for
biodiversity and wildlife.  It's old fashioned to think of humans as
only having detrimental effects on nature.  2 good books I'm reading now
(for those of you looking for winter reading):  The Sunflower Forest and
Bringing Nature Home.  Thanks for listening to my thoughts on this.
Marilyn


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jason Wiener 
  To: missoulagov at cmslists.com 
  Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09


  Amen. Though I will eventually have to do so, I sure didn't run
because I wanted to spend time regulating the presence, absence or
behavior of small animals. I guess the chicken shit should have tipped
me off though, huh? 

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090130/99f45
2da/attachment-0001.htm 

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

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:41:24 -0700
From: "Geoff Badenoch" <geoffb at ism.net>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] cats & dogs & stewardship
To: "'Marilyn Marler'" <marler at bigsky.net>,	"'Jason Wiener'"
	<JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <0D5F3EA79C14403E8CF4A6433BE82DE7 at Edradour>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Marilyn said "Let's make mindful choices always."

 

You can say that again.

 

Let's make mindful choices always

Let's make mindful choices always

Let's make mindful choices always

Let's make mindful choices always

Let's make mindful choices always

 

Regardless of your political stripe, your pet ownership status, your
mode of
transportation, your place on the economic totem pole, etc., it's a
principle we can all promise to follow. 

 

Geoff Badenoch

P   Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Marilyn Marler
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:16 AM
To: Jason Wiener; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] cats & dogs & stewardship

 

    Now that I've taken a full day to decompress from Bob's description
of
the "dogs off leash" discussion, I can cheerfully say that, unlike Jason
(apparently) I *did* run for council at least in part because of my
interest
in conservation issues and good stewardship of natural areas and
wildlife.

    Cats roaming free in town *do* have negative impacts to native
wildlife.
They kill a lot of birds. If only we could train them to kill starlings
and
house sparrows, but we can't. They just as happily eat migratory
warblers or
northern flickers (our neighbors' cat killed a flicker just recently).
Birds
have enough issues with habitat loss; do we have to also accept that our
pets "need" to eat them?  Cats can hunt even with bells, even if they
are
de-clawed. You might not see it, but it happens.  Denial is not a river
in
Egypt, as they say.  And I'm not even getting into general bad cat
behavior
like pooping in garden beds and so on, which is a legitimate quality of
life
issue. We need to move towards cats as indoor pets, although I don't
think
its appropriate for government to require it.  You can't have it both
ways-
be an advocate of local wildlife and an advocate of outdoor unsupervised
cats. (note: I have 3 rescued cats who I love dearly).

    Dogs off leash in our conservation areas *do* have negative impacts
to
native wildlife.  One person wrote to this list serve that she saw
"only" 8
incidents per year of dogs harrassing wildlife.  I did some math and if
one
person who spends 520 hours per year on one area of open space sees 8
incidents per year, and you expand that to cover 8 hours a day for 260
days,
and then expand that to 4 conservation areas (North Hills, Mt Sentinel,
L
trail, Lincoln Hills), then someone's dog is harassing wildlife about
avery
3rd day. I think that is very conservative because 1) a lot happens out
of
eyesight, and 2) there are more than 8 hours per day that people are
walking
dogs on conservation areas, and 3) you could probably divide those
conservation areas each again for a multiplyer of 8 instead of 4. So
conservatively, every other day.

    Bob, you included some obnoxiuos descriptions of arguements in favor
of
leashed dogs. You did not include Pam's suggestion that dogs off leash
harassing wildlife might be a positive thing because we have too many
urban
deer.  If we are going to do something about our urban deer population,
I
really hope we can aspire to do something humane and productive, rather
than
letting dogs run them to death.

    Again, I'm only focusing on conservation/stewardship issues here.
Not
social issues of whether I want someone's dog tripping me while I'm out
for
a run (as happens almost every time I run on the river trail which is
technically a leash area but I'm good natured so I deal with it), or
stealing my food when I'm working on Mt Sentinel. (note: I love dogs)

    And I'll close with something that is more of a topic for a book I'm
writing in my head- Can we please start moving beyond a false dichotomy
of
Human Influenced vs Non Human Influenced places?  The world is human
influenced.  Let's make mindful choices always. We CAN have our pets but
respect wildlife. We CAN have landscaping that makes room for
biodiversity
and wildlife.  It's old fashioned to think of humans as only having
detrimental effects on nature.  2 good books I'm reading now (for those
of
you looking for winter reading):  The
<http://www.amazon.com/Sunflower-Forest-Ecological-Restoration-Communion
/dp/
0520233204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233337878&sr=8-1>
Sunflower
Forest and Bringing Nature Home.  Thanks for listening to my thoughts on
this. Marilyn

 

 

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

From: Jason <mailto:JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us>  Wiener 

To: missoulagov at cmslists.com 

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:10 PM

Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

 

Amen. Though I will eventually have to do so, I sure didn't run because
I
wanted to spend time regulating the presence, absence or behavior of
small
animals. I guess the chicken shit should have tipped me off though, huh?


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090130/4c628
14f/attachment-0001.htm 

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

_______________________________________________
-------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. 

End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 17
*******************************************