[MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

[Stacy Rye]

Or maybe Alderwomen.



> Jason identified the core problem that causes the need to work around an

> income system that only allows revenue to grow at half the rate of

> inflation, but is expected to not only provide the same level of service

> year-in and year-out, but is also somehow expected to expand.  Nick

> identified the two main problems with the typical workarounds, economic

> inefficiency and the division of the city into socio-economic

> neighborhoods.

>

> What seems to have happened, and not just in Missoula, is that the

> constant

> drumbeat of lower taxes has given us a citizenry that loves government

> services but refuses to pay for them.  Moreover, like the aged roof that

> needs replaced but hopefully can make it at least another year, park

> maintenance becomes the easy victim because many of the city's expenses

> simply can't be deferred.

>

> Perhaps we have too many parks.  Perhaps the only thing our parks should

> have is open space that gets mowed once a month surrounded by cheap chain

> link.  One way to find out would be to break the Parks Department out of

> general city government, create an independent Missoula Park District with

> its own Board and elections and taxing authority, let the voters pass or

> reject levies as well as the people running their parks, and give them

> whatever the taxes they will accept will buy and no more.  Then we'll find

> out how important parks really are to Missoulans, and we'll have a system

> where parks are the only thing Park District Board members have to answer

> to

> instead of the current system where parks are but one slice of a complex

> pie

> when choosing aldermen.

>

>

>

>

>

>   _____

>

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

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

> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 13:53

> To: Jason Wiener

> Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

>

>

>

> Jason names the problem and solution - state law governing taxing and

> cities. I would not be surprised if the legislature -upon seeing Missoula

> end-round around it's clear intention of underfunding local

> government-making clear that 'city-wide' districts = 'general' taxation

> and

> must follow the same rules.

>

> However, the fix is clear-change state law.

>

>

>

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

> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 1:12 PM

> To: Jim McGrath

> Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

>

>

>

> As the general fund is structurally imbalanced, with revenues from the

> existing tax base never going up more than one-half the rate of inflation

> and salaries, which are 70% of the budget, going up at least at the

> inflation rate (and I don't think we would want it to be another way-or

> could get it to be with the quality union representation of most city

> workers), you can practically guarantee perpetual funding shortages absent

> growth that doesn't seem to pay for itself over the long-term anyway.

>

>

>

> So, yeah, we could cut the money out of some other department and put it

> in

> Parks and be faced with the same choice next year and the year after that

> and the year after that as the purchasing power of property tax revenue

> relentlessly shrinks.

>

>

>

> Stacy's frustration at decaying park playgrounds is Grover Norquist's evil

> dream come to life. Starve the beast, even if it's a workhorse and not a

> dragon, and, as it stumbles under the load, watch as people call for it to

> be shipped to the glue factory.

>

>

>

> Montana cities need the ability to restructure their revenue programs.

> Until

> that happens, they will have little recourse except to things like

> maintenance districts that avoid the levy cap but allow at least some of

> our

> revenues to keep pace with costs of providing the same level of service.

>

>

>

> J.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> *******

>

> Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One

>

> 1238 Jackson St.

>

> Missoula, MT 59802

>

> (406) 542-3232

>

> jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to

> City business may be considered public or private records depending on the

> message content. The City is often required by law to provide city records

> to individuals requesting records, some of which are not public records

> and

> have limited scope of distribution pursuant to state law. The City is

> required by law to protect private, confidential information. This message

> is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you

> are

> not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender

> immediately, do not forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies.

> Thank you.

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----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