[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09

[kathleen]

Bob, Eric, others: I, too, am frustrated by "taxes will not increase" language. 
To me, and most taxpayers, if there is a larger number as the TOTAL DUE on my property tax bill, then it is a "property tax" increase. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that this doesn't necessarily mean the "assessment" on the property changed, but the piece of paper is referred to by everyone as one's "Property Tax Bill."  

If it's bigger one year from the year before, that's an increase. To be prepared, we need to know the truth, no matter if it's good news or bad.

Yes, the bill is made up of many items, but to start playing semantics with what is a fee, what is a tax,  what is a district assessment, etc., seems disingenuous. 

Yes, it's accurate, technically, but it isn't a user-friendly way of letting taxpayers know what to expect. I don't like surprises.

As the budget discussion moves forward and in government proceedings in general, I hope people will be more specific about the language of taxes. 

If there's something that will appear on my Property Tax Bill (in any category) please, everyone, refer to it as "An Addition To Your Property Tax Bill," or as "An Increase To Your Property Tax Bill." 

On a positive note: I am so appreciative of the amazing hours, the hard work that our city servants put in. Seriously! Noting the times (too early for me) and the number of meetings that Bob mentions and watching MCAT proceedings and reading through that huge list in the Missoulian's "Government Week" column, I am sooooo appreciative that there are still people out there who will run for office. It's far more time-consuming than a lot of people think. I know the Council meetings are just a drop in the bucket compared with the week's worth of other meetings and preparation. 

BUT .... I just want clear language, user-friendly communication. 
Thanks for reading my rant and suggestions. 

Kathleen R. Kimble


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eric Taylor 
  To: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us ; missoulagov at cmslists.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09


  <<according to my crystal ball there will be maintenance districts on our tax bills this November.>>

  <<Bottom line is that they are proposing to keep taxes static.>>

  If I understand this correctly, the tax bill we receive in the mail this November- the amount we will be required to pay in FY 2010 will go up, but it is not because of higher taxes. It is because of the soon to be referred and approved maintenance district(s).

  <<We are the only major city in Montana that has not structured its taxes this way.>>

  Your tax bill will go up, but we did not raise taxes. This sounds like administrative election year magic to me. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:59:09 -0600
  From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
  To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
  Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09


  Greetings,

  We started the day late with PAZ at ten. Our first item was to look at a few modifications to the Mill Site project. There were a couple of minor plat amendments and a phasing plan. The new phasing plan calls for the bulk of the project to be built in 2012 with the northwest portion being built in 2015. We also learned that the stadium parking lot will be built this summer as well as the trail connection to California street. The MRA board is considering putting the whole park development out to bid for construction this summer. Bonding and Bidding environments may be good enough right now to support getting the whole thing done up front. We are going to get a more detailed update on all that in Conservation.



  One of the sticking points in the project has been the road under the tracks connecting to Cregg lane.  Way back when, the bridge was built to go over a log pond. Not a road. So now that they want to put a big road with lots of traffic under it, MRL is saying no deal.  They want the developer to build them a new bridge to the tune of a million bucks.  We learned that negotiations had progressed to where the developer was on board with this idea and just needed to figure out how to pay for it. Otherwise the holdup is just deciding when it is the right time to pull the trigger.  Once they start they will need to make millions of dollars of additional investment in infrastructure before they can sell the first lot.  They need to be confident that the market is ready before they start the process rolling. It turns out that they are lucky DEQ stalled the project for an extra year because otherwise there is a good chance they would have poured all that money in right before the market cooled down and the whole thing could have gone bust.



  Next was setting the public hearing to consider RLD 4 zoning for the Gables subdivision in Orchard Homes. We approved this subdivision a couple of years ago. There was a successful zoning protest and a supermajority was not there to support the zoning. So it was annexed and subdivided with no zoning in place.  Then the developer never built the thing and the plat is scheduled to expire next week. He has indicated that he would like to do mini-storage units on the site. Last week his attorney, Alan McCormick, sent us a letter indicating we had no right to try to regulate what he did with the property since it is not zoned. So we decided to go ahead and zone it.

  For now the proposal is for interim zoning of RLD 4 which is what the original proposal called for. Then we will send it through the formal process with planning board to establish permanent zoning.

  The developer’s representative, Nick Kaufman of WGM group, was there to explain that they were indeed looking at a mini-storage project for the site. They intend to work with the neighbors to develop a proposal and come in with a PUD request.  Dave had some choice words as to his feelings on mini-storage facilities. I can’t find the quote but it was something to the effect of ‘vile scourge on the landscape.’ Regardless of the varying opinions on these places the committee members voted to set the public hearing to establish interim zoning.



  Our next item was an update from Mike Barton and Roger Millar on the work plan and work load at OPG. Urban initiatives has pretty much the same stuff going on next year except they budgeted a bunch of time to develop an Agriculture lands policy. Roger did a presentation on the OPG workload through the first three quarters of FY09. The gist is that things are slower than last year but this last quarter has picked up substantially. Overall fee revenue is down something like 7%. Not really that bad considering what is going on in other places around the country. The powerpoint will be attached to the PAZ minutes and is worth looking at if you are into that stuff.



  In A&F we took up the maintenance district discussion. We discussed this on the list a couple of weeks ago. The basic idea is that we have the authority to set up maintenance districts to tax people for certain stuff like maintaining the roads or the parks or the trees and a few other things. These districts can be for very small areas or for the whole city.  The appeal of maintenance districts is that they are outside of our mill levy cap. The legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has prohibited us from raising our general fund mill levy by more than half the rate of inflation. This of course means that we eventually go broke. Maintenance districts give us the ability to cost shift a bunch of stuff outside of this limitation. We are the only major city in Montana that has not structured its taxes this way. There is definitely some controversy here but according to my crystal ball there will be maintenance districts on our tax bills this November.



  There were two good items in Public Works. We set the public hearing for an SID to finally do some traffic calming on Philips street.  There will be a few of these things that make you curve right and then left when you go through the intersection. They seem to work and the fire trucks can get through them OK. There will also be a bunch of bulb outs near the school as part of the safe routes to school program.

  We also directed staff to come up with some proposals for reducing the speed limit on Reserve street near the CS Porter school. DOT did a traffic study and determined that we can set it as low as 30 MPH and they offered to pay for the various signing facilities. There are a number of options on how exactly we want to implement this so staff is going to work on it and bring back a package for us to take through the process. School representatives were there to encourage us to make the reductions full time instead of just during specific hours since they have events going on all day every day. They also offered special thanks to Jim Hausauer and Reggie Bardgett for pushing this effort forward.



  In Budget Committee of the Whole (BCOW) the Mayor presented the administrative budget for FY2010.  Lots of other press on this so I’m not going to dwell on it too much. Bottom line is that they are proposing to keep taxes static. It all works because we had a reduction of $450,000 in our General Obligation bond payments and they are proposing to cut the contribution to the employee health plan by $500,000. Magic! We pick up $950,000 to keep the general fund solvent without raising taxes. The administration argues that the health fund is in plenty good shape without the money but it sounds like the police union may be feeling a bit more protective about the employer contribution. It is currently about $680 per month per employee. It would go down $100 per month with the administration’s proposal. More to come on this in the next few weeks. Budget details can be found here:

  ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/documents/Council_Review_FY10_Operating_Budget/Operating%20Budget/





  Thanks for your interest, 



  Bob Jaffe

  Missoula City Council, Ward 3

  bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

  406-728-1052

  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.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  -----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/20090522/b49f7224/attachment.htm>