[MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

[Jim McGrath]

Can they control it? Do they vote each year or every four years to set
the amount? 

 

From: Rod Austin [mailto:raustin at missouladowntownbid.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 1:05 PM
To: Jim McGrath; 'LaNette Diaz'
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

 

Part of the problem here is that as a society we don't have a way to
really determine what is important to us other than what we pay in taxes
and who is at the trough first getting what we do pay. Park maintenance
is important but doesn't carry the same weight as police and fire
protection. Many of us think it should be funded better than it is and
are looking for ways to find it. Tax districts are a very good
alternative(call it what you will) to listening to politicians and
bureaucrats argue while not getting enough done. At least this way each
household in a "district" can have a very clear understanding of how
much they pay for what service and can control it through their own
ballot and not an elected official.

 

 

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:40 PM
To: LaNette Diaz
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

 

Yup.

And city-wide "districts" are really just levies by a different name.

It is also possible to dedicate mills -as is done for aging services-or
pass bonds.

But since the question is really about money, the regular budget process
should work fine-if parks are more important than soething else, fund
them. Why would the city not fund them? Apparently because they think
they're not important enough.

 

Surely we could consider "police service districts" or "fire protection
districts" - the logic is identical. But the elected officials think
those programs deserve every single dollar they get and then we run out
because we don't want to raise taxes.

 

 

From: LaNette Diaz [mailto:lanettediaz at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:35 PM
To: Jim McGrath
Cc: Stacy Rye; Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

 

Parks Maintenance Districts are formed to include the entire city
limits. The only city in Montana that does it my smaller areas within
the city limits is Billings. However, it's not very efficient. The bonus
of park maintenance districts are the funds are dedicated toward park
maintenance and cannot go toward anything else or be cut from the
general fund. 

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jim McGrath
<jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org> wrote:

The other way is to use funds currently budgeted to something else. Are
parks more important than police cars? Fund them instead. If you are
saying park maintenance is the LOWEST priority and can only be done if
you have surplus cash, then fine.
I'm a bit resistance to the maintenance district idea because it is
merely an end-around of the levy increase plus it suggests the
possibility that different neighborhoods would have different levels of
maintenance dependent on their income.


-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Stacy Rye
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:09 PM
To: Bob Jaffe
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

I thought I would add the summary of Administration and Finance and
dealing with the Parks and Rec department portion of the Capital
Improvement Program.

We looked at a few projects for Parks and Rec that weren't General Fund
projects.  Here they are:  Milwaukee Road trail from Russell to Reserve,
the Tonkin Trail, Grant Creek Trail, new park for 44 Ranch subdivision
out
Mullan and adding meters to park irrigation systems.

This will be the sixth year that Parks will not get $250,000 for park
maintenance.  In 2004 we used the Parks maintenance budget to help with
the Aquatics project which came in over budget.  We did that for four
years, I think.  Last year it was removed again, and this year it's
nowhere to be found.

Missoula has about $20 million worth of backed-up parks maintenance
projects.  This is stuff like decent bathrooms, updated playground
equipment (has anyone experienced the chunks of wood, sorry, I mean
slivers you can get from the structure at Sacajawea park? Lovely, aren't
they.), tennis courts, etc.

There's a couple of ways to get at this problem given if you think
neighborhood parks are essential to Missoula.

We could raise our levy by 2 mills this Fiscal year and years after.
This
would equal about $200,000 per year and cost a homeowner about $6 per
year.  The other thing we're also discussing parks maintenance districts
where we all would pay maybe around $30 a year and the money would go
towards parks in your district and maybe a portion for the urban forest.

This would actually raise a lot of money for parks.  I understand a lot
of
cities go this route instead of trying to fund Parks and Rec out of the
general fund.

I really like the idea of maintenance districts instead of looking under
rocks and in crevices for funding for P and R every year.  I think
neighborhood parks are fantastic and critical to a city.  My family uses
the n-hood parks like mad in the summer and they were crucial to my
sanity
when my daugher was a toddler.  Speak up if you have any thoughts on
this.

Stacy




> Greetings,

>

> This morning we learned about the new PM 2.5 air quality standards in

> Public Safety committee from Ben Schmidt of the health department. PM

> 2.5 refers to the really fine particles in the air. The EPA has

changed

> the standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter down to 35. 35 is

where

> we are today. So we need to take steps if we are going to avoid

becoming

> a "non-attainment area" in the future.  Being a non-attainment area

> means that more severe measures must be put into place. Things like

> mandatory replacement of woodstoves and industrial sources having to

> install expensive technology. The cost of that technology cannot be

> considered a mitigating factor if we are a non-attainment area.

>

> So, if we can maintain our status below the 35 limit with voluntary

and

> softer restrictions all the better.  The primary contributing sources

> are woodstoves (55%) , Ammonium Nitrate (19%), and Hog fuel boilers

> (12%). Ammonium Nitrate comes from Nitrous Oxide which comes from a

lot

> of things but mostly cars.  Hog fuel basically means wood chips. I

> learned that when I did a job for a company that makes those giant

> grinders.

>

> We already have pretty strict wood burning rules inside the "Air

> Stagnation Zone." This is the Missoula valley and inside slope of the

> surrounding hills. The problem is that the fine particles can come

from

> far away. So the new rules will affect the whole county. From Seeley

> lake, to Lolo, to the Nine Mile. The health department is proposing

new

> standards that will restrict the installation of new wood stoves in

> these areas.  It will also require that during the worst air days

people

> in these areas use alternative heating sources if they have them.

Based

> on the history of recent years this type of restriction would only

> happen one or two days during the winter.

>

> There is a fairly lengthy public process involved in making these rule

> changes that is just starting. If you would like to learn more please

> visit the health department web site:

> http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/airquality/

>

>

>

> We also learned about what the county health department is doing about

> swine flu.  They expect we will see it in Missoula before long since

> there is a lot of travel in and out of here.  They have set up a

hotline

> and all doctors in the state are requested to send in samples from

> anyone with symptoms.

>

>

>

> The main item in Conservation was an update from the Conservation

> District. They get funding from a few mills in the taxes and do a lot

of

> cool projects. My favorite is the cost sharing programs they offer for

> weed and erosion control projects for land owners.

>

>

>

> We traded our PAZ time for COW today to have our quarterly OPG review

> interlocal meeting with the county commissioners. This time we heard

all

> about the Missoula Forum for Children and Youth.  This is an umbrella

> organization comprised of a number of entities that are all involved

in

> stuff like reducing teen drug and alcohol use and teen pregnancy.  It

> reminded me of something Wolf A. from the job service was saying at

that

> Missoula Economy meeting this week. He talked about how we have all

> these different entities that do various parts of the economic

> development puzzle. In other places they have these services

coordinated

> together and can present prospective employers with a more complete

> package.  I'm pretty sure he was suggesting we need something for the

> economic development world like the Forum is for youth substance abuse

> and prevention programs.

>

>

>

> They have all sorts of great programs to provide activities, support

> families, and offer resources for troubled and at risk kids.  The one

> piece that rubs me a little wrong is the whole abstinence/prohibition

> approach to alcohol. They seem to understand that teaching kids

healthy

> choices about sex is more effective than teaching abstinence. But they

> still think abstinence is the right approach with alcohol. I lean more

> towards the idea that teenagers, especially 18+, should be learning

how

> to responsibly appreciate alcohol in an honest and open way. The

illicit

> nature of the whole thing leads to binge drinking and poor decisions.

> That's my opinion but my kids are still a little young for this to be

an

> issue for our family. Maybe I'll see it different in a few years. The

> stats and pretty much all of our personal experience tell us that a

lot

> of teenagers drink. Pushing it all into the dark just seems like the

> wrong approach.

>

>

>

> In Public Works we heard a cool presentation about a project to put

> artwork on the big signal control electrical boxes around town. Here

is

> a link to the presentation with some neat pictures:

>

>

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/packets/council/2009/2009-04-27/Referrals/Tr

> afficSignalBoxArtAttch.pdf

>

> We also discussed waiving the noise ordinance for the reconstruction

of

> the Scott Street bridge this summer. They plan to work 16 hour days

and

> on some occasions straight through the night. The committee approved

the

> proposal but is expecting it to come back on Monday night with some

more

> specificity as to just how late they will go and how often.

>

> We revisited the discussion of offering some kind of temporary

discount

> for folks who hook up to sewer.  It used to cost $350. Last year we

> raised it to $1400. This more accurately reflected the costs of the

> sewer development program. The issue was raised by someone who

received

> the notice that we were requiring folks to hook up when they sell

their

> property, but then waited a couple of years to actually come in and do

> it.  Then he found that the price went up 375%.

>

> As a compromise solution I moved that we offer a $500 rebate coupon

for

> any existing homeowners in the city who want to hook up to the sewer

> before 12/31/09. The money would come from the sewer development fund.

> The fee wouldn't actually change so we would not have to go through

the

> routine of amending the ordinance. It would still be $1400 but a chunk

> would be getting paid for by the sewer development fund. This way we

> give an incentive to folks to get switched over and give one more

chance

> for everybody to get the word that the price is going up.  We actually

> send them a $500 coupon as part of the publicity.  The idea was still

> met with some skepticism but it narrowly passed. We will see what

> happens to it on Monday.

>

>

>

> I had to skip out on A&F for some work obligations so I'm not sure

what

> happened with the rest of the CIP discussions.

>

>

>

> Thanks for your interest,

>

>

>

>

>

> Bob Jaffe

>

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

>

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



Stacy Rye
(406) 543-9784


_______________________________________________
-----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.
_______________________________________________
-----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/20090501/104ec5d6/attachment.htm>