[MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

[Geoff Badenoch]

Janet is right, of course.  The cities have met together for YEARS to
coordinate on how to approach the State Legislature.  It is HARD work.  That
is a given, and we should be grateful for what has been done by the people
who have done this work on our behalf.  It is NOT easy.

 

The question, it seems, is, is it impossible?  If we are satisfied that
everything that can be done has been done, then Janet is right.  This
discussion about what is easy wouldn't be taking place.  But suppose there
were a successful strategy? What would it look like?  Who would be involved?
How would it play out?  

 

Since we know that what has been done in the past has not yielded results
for cities we want, what strategy would?  If we looked forward toward the
solutions we think are desirable-all the while being mindful of the worthy
efforts of the past that have not brought us the results we might
desire-what would we come up with?

 

I don't know anything but the how to ask the question that seems most
obvious.

 

Geoff Badenoch

P   Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Donahue [mailto:janetdonahue at msn.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:50 PM
To: suemalek at yahoo.com; geoffb at ism.net; jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us;
jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09

 

Thank you for this, Sue.  As you may know, the city of Missoula has -- for
YEARS -- met and coordinated with urban cities on all matters that we can
agree, which are many.  We have spent a lot of time working together at the
legislature for common interests, taxes and distribution being one.  I'm
sure the city of Missoula continues to meet with urban cities on a regular
bases (we met at least quarterly when I was at the city).  Lest anyone
assumes the cities don't work together at the legislature -- it isn't so!

:).  As you indicate, it's not an easy game and, although we may think the

urban cities have more legislators, when the redistricting occurred, those
districts were divided into pie-shaped sections where most urban legislators
also now have rural areas to be concerned about.  I wish it were as easy as
some may suggest.  If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Janet Stevens Donahue
  <http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/emoticons/moon.gif> 





  _____  

Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:53:00 -0700
From: suemalek at yahoo.com
To: geoffb at ism.net; JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us; jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org
CC: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09


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

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/20090502/09078c7a/attachment.htm>