[MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

[Sue Malek]

Hello you all,  We are finally back from the Legislature.  It was a difficult session.  The process is challenging beyond belief.  Democrats achieved a lot in the end, including full funding for Healthy Montana Kids, 3% and 3% for schools with at least the second year being fully in the base, and significant accountability measures built into monies allocated from federal stimulus funds.

The Missoula legislative delegation is working to build coalitions with other Montana cities.  Urban interests are just part of an array of interests that cause legislators to come together and move apart.  When you complicate the urban/rural divide with differing interests between Republicans and Democrats, traditional energy producers versus environmentalist, self-determination versus common interest areas, etc., the balancing act gets quite interesting.  If you count up legislators from cities versus rural areas, you will find, in fact, that approximately 60 legislators are from areas that identify with rural interests.  The picture is complex and dependent on building relationships.

That said, let's get together soon and talk interests.  I have not read all the emails that resulted in the email I am responding to so I, for one, have lot's to learn.  

Looking forward to visiting soon,

Representative Sue Malek
House District 98, Missoula, MT 

--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Jim McGrath <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org> wrote:
From: Jim McGrath <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09
To: "Geoff Badenoch" <geoffb at ism.net>, "Jason Wiener" <JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 7:40 PM




 
 
RE: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09
Indeed. And you would think that most of the legislature is elected from these population centers.





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

From: Geoff Badenoch [mailto:geoffb at ism.net]

Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 7:05 PM

To: Jim McGrath; 'Jason Wiener'

Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com

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



I believe the Class A cities in Montana all have self-government powers;

that is, they are governed by local charters.  While their forms of

government differ from city to city, self-government powers and the fact

they are the large cities are something they have in common.  Missoula was

the last of the Class A cities to get self-government powers (through the

Charter adopted by the people) and precious little has been done with them.







When I watch the Montana Legislature treat its major cities like rented

mules, it makes me cringe.  Local governments in Montana must employ day to

day administrative skill and ability that rivals the State in many cases.

Moreover, local governments are more immediately accountable to the citizens

that the State government is.  More sophisticated means and responsibility

(along with accountability and transparency) ought to be exercised by local

governments to do what must be done to provide local services.







Returning to my original observation, I have always imagined the need for a

confederation of self-government cities that would strategize an approach to

get what is needed from the State Legislature.  Not all the needs are

common, but the common approach could be distilled and political pressure

brought to the task.  It takes leadership, vision and city to city

communication.  The approach was tried on the municipal power gambit (which

failed) and that effort showed that such vision and communication are

possible. I reckon the call ought to go out sometime this fall to begin

regular discussions between the cities to start getting ready for the 2011

State Legislature.  Yep, it will take that long and that many meetings. 







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 Jim McGrath

Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 1:53 PM

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. 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090502/b8adeb56/attachment.htm>