[MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

[KentWLA at aol.com]

Having sat back and viewed these exchanges  for sometime, I'm finally moved 
to jump into this discussion.  As a  designer of parks of all kinds, I, 
along with my colleagues,  have  been continually frustrated by the lack of 
interest, and, of course, funding for  maintenance of our many parks.  Unless 
and until residents finally realize  that the provision of attractive, clean 
and well maintained parks that serve  everyone is a necessary function of 
government, then we'll  always being  playing catch up.  
 
I worked for the East Bay Regional Park  District in the S.F. Bay Area for 
six years, and continued to observe its  operation for many more years 
thereafter.  EBRPD was one of first truly  regional park districts in the 
country, and has generally been a success for  many years.  Its budget is based on 
a district-wide levy that is voted on  by the residents of the district.  
Therefore, from my experience, I tend to  agree with "mcc" that maybe a 
separate stand-alone "Missoula Regional Park  District" is the way to go.  Several 
of these districts have already been  created in the Bitterroot with varied 
success.  If joined with an area  outside the city limits, such a district 
might also alleviate some of the issues  that the County continues to face 
with its rather fragmented way of dealing with  parks.  
 
Although I'm no legal or fiscal expert,  current state law provides for the 
creation of both County Park Districts and  Park Maintenance Districts.  
(FYI - Marty Rehbein was one of the  non-legislative members of a 2008 interim 
committee that was charged with  studying special districts in Montana.  
The committee recommended a couple  of clean-up bills that apparently didn't 
make it through the process, as I can't  find any further reference to them.) 
I'm currently working on an informal basis  with Ravalli County to create 
some sort of district for the maintenance of their  US 93 pathway system.  
 
I hope this discussion continues so that  we can finally move to a 
reasonable solution for achieving the much  needed maintenance of our park 
facilities.  
 
 
Kent E.  Watson, FASLA
Landscape Architect/Owner 
Kent Watson &  Associates
Landscape Architecture
210 N. Higgins Ave., St.  334
Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 721-3500; 541-3541 Fax; 240-0274  Cell
e-mail: Kentwla at aol.com; Kentwla at blackfoot.net

 
 
In a message dated 5/1/2009 3:01:34 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
srye at montana.com writes:

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


_______________________________________________
-----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. 



**************Join ChristianMingle.com® FREE! Meet Christian Singles in 
your area. Start now! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221673648x1201419171/aol?redir=http://www.christianmingle.com/campaign.html%3Fcat%3Dadbuy%26
src%3Dplatforma%26adid%3Dfooter:050109%26newurl%3Dreg_path.html)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090501/d248ef0f/attachment.htm>