<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I believe this gets to the crux of the matter about cities getting together -- I believe it is a much larger issue -- not only cities need to join forces but the business communities in those urban cities need to be a part of the discussion, especially about taxes, jobs, and salaries. They all go hand-in-hand. Larry Swanson is right on. We also used to have a Mayor's round table with many of these players at the table. Just because we've had them in the past doesn't mean they can't be reinvented and expanded to move with the times. No time like the present!<br><br><span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting,Cursive; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(128, 0, 128);">Janet<br><img src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/../emoticons/moon.gif"><br></span><br><br><br><br>> Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 13:11:49 -0600<br>> From: russ@matr.net<br>> To: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Missoula Economic Future<br>> <br>> Interesting items from last week's Missoula economic forum. Statistics <br>> about population (Missoula is or will be #1) growth in the cities while <br>> the rural areas continue to decline, demographics (the state is getting <br>> older and workforce is going to become an even greater challenge) and <br>> the current and future makeup of our economy. Excellent that Missoula is <br>> going to develop an economic blueprint.<br>> <http://matr.net/article-34083.html><br>> <br>> <br>> Missoula, Montana resilient during recession - At forum,<br>> statistics show city good place to live<br>> <br>> <http://matr.net/article-34083.html> http://matr.net/article-34083.html<br>> <br>> <br>> Emergence of Workforce Development as a Crucial Aspect of<br>> Montana's Economic Development<br>> <br>> <http://matr.net/article-34085.html>http://matr.net/article-34085.html<br>> <http://matr.net/article-34083.html><br>> <br>> <br>> Economist, Larry Swanson, director of the O’Connor Center for<br>> the Rocky Mountain West - "Bitterroot Valley could recover<br>> quickly" <http://matr.net/article-34138.html><br>> http://matr.net/article-34138.html<br>> <br>> <br>> Janet Donahue wrote:<br>> > Thank you for this, Sue. As you may know, the city of Missoula has -- <br>> > for YEARS -- met and coordinated with urban cities on all matters that <br>> > we can agree, which are many. We have spent a lot of time working <br>> > together at the legislature for common interests, taxes and <br>> > distribution being one. I'm sure the city of Missoula continues to <br>> > meet with urban cities on a regular bases (we met at least quarterly <br>> > when I was at the city). Lest anyone assumes the cities don't work <br>> > together at the legislature -- it isn't so! :). As you indicate, it's <br>> > not an easy game and, although we may think the urban cities have more <br>> > legislators, when the redistricting occurred, those districts were <br>> > divided into pie-shaped sections where most urban legislators also now <br>> > have rural areas to be concerned about. I wish it were as easy as some <br>> > may suggest. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.<br>> ><br>> > Janet Stevens Donahue<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:53:00 -0700<br>> > From: suemalek@yahoo.com<br>> > To: geoffb@ism.net; JWiener@ci.missoula.mt.us; <br>> > jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org<br>> > CC: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> ><br>> > Hello you all, We are finally back from the Legislature. It was a <br>> > difficult session. The process is challenging beyond belief. Democrats <br>> > achieved a lot in the end, including full funding for Healthy Montana <br>> > Kids, 3% and 3% for schools with at least the second year being fully <br>> > in the base, and significant accountability measures built into monies <br>> > allocated from federal stimulus funds.<br>> ><br>> > The Missoula legislative delegation is working to build coalitions <br>> > with other Montana cities. Urban interests are just part of an array <br>> > of interests that cause legislators to come together and move apart. <br>> > When you complicate the urban/rural divide with differing interests <br>> > between Republicans and Democrats, traditional energy producers versus <br>> > environmentalist, self-determination versus common interest areas, <br>> > etc., the balancing act gets quite interesting. If you count up <br>> > legislators from cities versus rural areas, you will find, in fact, <br>> > that approximately 60 legislators are from areas that identify with <br>> > rural interests. The picture is complex and dependent on building <br>> > relationships.<br>> ><br>> > That said, let's get together soon and talk interests. I have not read <br>> > all the emails that resulted in the email I am responding to so I, for <br>> > one, have lot's to learn.<br>> ><br>> > Looking forward to visiting soon,<br>> ><br>> > Representative Sue Malek<br>> > House District 98, Missoula, MT<br>> ><br>> > --- On *Fri, 5/1/09, Jim McGrath /<jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org>/* wrote:<br>> ><br>> > From: Jim McGrath <jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org><br>> > Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> > To: "Geoff Badenoch" <geoffb@ism.net>, "Jason Wiener"<br>> > <JWiener@ci.missoula.mt.us><br>> > Cc: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 7:40 PM<br>> ><br>> > Indeed. And you would think that most of the legislature is<br>> > elected from these population centers.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: Geoff Badenoch [mailto:geoffb@ism.net]<br>> > Sent: Fri 5/1/2009 7:05 PM<br>> > To: Jim McGrath; 'Jason Wiener'<br>> > Cc: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> ><br>> > I believe the Class A cities in Montana all have self-government<br>> > powers;<br>> > that is, they are governed by local charters. While their forms of<br>> > government differ from city to city, self-government powers and<br>> > the fact<br>> > they are the large cities are something they have in common.<br>> > Missoula was<br>> > the last of the Class A cities to get self-government powers<br>> > (through the<br>> > Charter adopted by the people) and precious little has been done<br>> > with them.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > When I watch the Montana Legislature treat its major cities like<br>> > rented<br>> > mules, it makes me cringe. Local governments in Montana must<br>> > employ day to<br>> > day administrative skill and ability that rivals the State in many<br>> > cases.<br>> > Moreover, local governments are more immediately accountable to<br>> > the citizens<br>> > that the State government is. More sophisticated means and<br>> > responsibility<br>> > (along with accountability and transparency) ought to be exercised<br>> > by local<br>> > governments to do what must be done to provide local services.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Returning to my original observation, I have always imagined the<br>> > need for a<br>> > confederation of self-government cities that would strategize an<br>> > approach to<br>> > get what is needed from the State Legislature. Not all the needs are<br>> > common, but the common approach could be distilled and political<br>> > pressure<br>> > brought to the task. It takes leadership, vision and city to city<br>> > communication. The approach was tried on the municipal power<br>> > gambit (which<br>> > failed) and that effort showed that such vision and communication are<br>> > possible. I reckon the call ought to go out sometime this fall to<br>> > begin<br>> > regular discussions between the cities to start getting ready for<br>> > the 2011<br>> > State Legislature. Yep, it will take that long and that many<br>> > meetings.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Geoff Badenoch<br>> ><br>> > P Please consider the environment before printing this email.<br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com<br>> > [mailto:missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath<br>> > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 1:53 PM<br>> > To: Jason Wiener<br>> > Cc: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Jason names the problem and solution - state law governing taxing and<br>> > cities. I would not be surprised if the legislature -upon seeing<br>> > Missoula<br>> > end-round around it's clear intention of underfunding local<br>> > government-making clear that 'city-wide' districts = 'general'<br>> > taxation and<br>> > must follow the same rules.<br>> ><br>> > However, the fix is clear-change state law.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > From: Jason Wiener [mailto:JWiener@ci.missoula.mt.us]<br>> > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 1:12 PM<br>> > To: Jim McGrath<br>> > Cc: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > As the general fund is structurally imbalanced, with revenues from the<br>> > existing tax base never going up more than one-half the rate of<br>> > inflation<br>> > and salaries, which are 70% of the budget, going up at least at the<br>> > inflation rate (and I don't think we would want it to be another<br>> > way-or<br>> > could get it to be with the quality union representation of most city<br>> > workers), you can practically guarantee perpetual funding<br>> > shortages absent<br>> > growth that doesn't seem to pay for itself over the long-term anyway.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > So, yeah, we could cut the money out of some other department and<br>> > put it in<br>> > Parks and be faced with the same choice next year and the year<br>> > after that<br>> > and the year after that as the purchasing power of property tax<br>> > revenue<br>> > relentlessly shrinks.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Stacy's frustration at decaying park playgrounds is Grover<br>> > Norquist's evil<br>> > dream come to life. Starve the beast, even if it's a workhorse and<br>> > not a<br>> > dragon, and, as it stumbles under the load, watch as people call<br>> > for it to<br>> > be shipped to the glue factory.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Montana cities need the ability to restructure their revenue<br>> > programs. Until<br>> > that happens, they will have little recourse except to things like<br>> > maintenance districts that avoid the levy cap but allow at least<br>> > some of our<br>> > revenues to keep pace with costs of providing the same level of<br>> > service.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > J.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > *******<br>> ><br>> > Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One<br>> ><br>> > 1238 Jackson St.<br>> ><br>> > Missoula, MT 59802<br>> ><br>> > (406) 542-3232<br>> ><br>> > jwiener@ci.missoula.mt.us<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > From: missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com<br>> > [mailto:missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath<br>> > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:40 PM<br>> > To: LaNette Diaz<br>> > Cc: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Yup.<br>> ><br>> > And city-wide "districts" are really just levies by a different name.<br>> ><br>> > It is also possible to dedicate mills -as is done for aging<br>> > services-or pass<br>> > bonds.<br>> ><br>> > But since the question is really about money, the regular budget<br>> > process<br>> > should work fine-if parks are more important than soething else,<br>> > fund them.<br>> > Why would the city not fund them? Apparently because they think<br>> > they're not<br>> > important enough.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Surely we could consider "police service districts" or "fire<br>> > protection<br>> > districts" - the logic is identical. But the elected officials<br>> > think those<br>> > programs deserve every single dollar they get and then we run out<br>> > because we<br>> > don't want to raise taxes.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > From: LaNette Diaz [mailto:lanettediaz@gmail.com]<br>> > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:35 PM<br>> > To: Jim McGrath<br>> > Cc: Stacy Rye; Bob Jaffe; missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Parks Maintenance Districts are formed to include the entire city<br>> > limits.<br>> > The only city in Montana that does it my smaller areas within the city<br>> > limits is Billings. However, it's not very efficient. The bonus of<br>> > park<br>> > maintenance districts are the funds are dedicated toward park<br>> > maintenance<br>> > and cannot go toward anything else or be cut from the general fund.<br>> ><br>> > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jim McGrath<br>> > <jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org><br>> > wrote:<br>> ><br>> > The other way is to use funds currently budgeted to something<br>> > else. Are<br>> > parks more important than police cars? Fund them instead. If you are<br>> > saying park maintenance is the LOWEST priority and can only be done if<br>> > you have surplus cash, then fine.<br>> > I'm a bit resistance to the maintenance district idea because it is<br>> > merely an end-around of the levy increase plus it suggests the<br>> > possibility that different neighborhoods would have different<br>> > levels of<br>> > maintenance dependent on their income.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com<br>> > [mailto:missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Stacy Rye<br>> > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 12:09 PM<br>> > To: Bob Jaffe<br>> > Cc: missoulagov@cmslists.com<br>> > Subject: [MissoulaGov] Parks Committee Update 4-29-09<br>> ><br>> > I thought I would add the summary of Administration and Finance and<br>> > dealing with the Parks and Rec department portion of the Capital<br>> > Improvement Program.<br>> ><br>> > We looked at a few projects for Parks and Rec that weren't General<br>> > Fund<br>> > projects. Here they are: Milwaukee Road trail from Russell to Reserve,<br>> > the Tonkin Trail, Grant Creek Trail, new park for 44 Ranch subdivision<br>> > out<br>> > Mullan and adding meters to park irrigation systems.<br>> ><br>> > This will be the sixth year that Parks will not get $250,000 for park<br>> > maintenance. In 2004 we used the Parks maintenance budget to help with<br>> > the Aquatics project which came in over budget. We did that for four<br>> > years, I think. Last year it was removed again, and this year it's<br>> > nowhere to be found.<br>> ><br>> > Missoula has about $20 million worth of backed-up parks maintenance<br>> > projects. This is stuff like decent bathrooms, updated playground<br>> > equipment (has anyone experienced the chunks of wood, sorry, I mean<br>> > slivers you can get from the structure at Sacajawea park? Lovely,<br>> > aren't<br>> > they.), tennis courts, etc.<br>> ><br>> > There's a couple of ways to get at this problem given if you think<br>> > neighborhood parks are essential to Missoula.<br>> ><br>> > We could raise our levy by 2 mills this Fiscal year and years after.<br>> > This<br>> > would equal about $200,000 per year and cost a homeowner about $6 per<br>> > year. The other thing we're also discussing parks maintenance<br>> > districts<br>> > where we all would pay maybe around $30 a year and the money would go<br>> > towards parks in your district and maybe a portion for the urban<br>> > forest.<br>> ><br>> > This would actually raise a lot of money for parks. I understand a lot<br>> > of<br>> > cities go this route instead of trying to fund Parks and Rec out<br>> > of the<br>> > general fund.<br>> ><br>> > I really like the idea of maintenance districts instead of looking<br>> > under<br>> > rocks and in crevices for funding for P and R every year. I think<br>> > neighborhood parks are fantastic and critical to a city. My family<br>> > uses<br>> > the n-hood parks like mad in the summer and they were crucial to my<br>> > sanity<br>> > when my daugher was a toddler. Speak up if you have any thoughts on<br>> > this.<br>> ><br>> > Stacy<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > > Greetings,<br>> > ><br>> > > This morning we learned about the new PM 2.5 air quality<br>> > standards in<br>> > > Public Safety committee from Ben Schmidt of the health<br>> > department. PM<br>> > > 2.5 refers to the really fine particles in the air. The EPA has<br>> > changed<br>> > > the standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter down to 35. 35 is<br>> > where<br>> > > we are today. So we need to take steps if we are going to avoid<br>> > becoming<br>> > > a "non-attainment area" in the future. Being a non-attainment area<br>> > > means that more severe measures must be put into place. Things like<br>> > > mandatory replacement of woodstoves and industrial sources having to<br>> > > install expensive technology. The cost of that technology cannot be<br>> > > considered a mitigating factor if we are a non-attainment area.<br>> > ><br>> > > So, if we can maintain our status below the 35 limit with voluntary<br>> > and<br>> > > softer restrictions all the better. The primary contributing sources<br>> > > are woodstoves (55%) , Ammonium Nitrate (19%), and Hog fuel boilers<br>> > > (12%). Ammonium Nitrate comes from Nitrous Oxide which comes from a<br>> > lot<br>> > > of things but mostly cars. Hog fuel basically means wood chips. I<br>> > > learned that when I did a job for a company that makes those giant<br>> > > grinders.<br>> > ><br>> > > We already have pretty strict wood burning rules inside the "Air<br>> > > Stagnation Zone." This is the Missoula valley and inside slope<br>> > of the<br>> > > surrounding hills. The problem is that the fine particles can come<br>> > from<br>> > > far away. So the new rules will affect the whole county. From Seeley<br>> > > lake, to Lolo, to the Nine Mile. The health department is proposing<br>> > new<br>> > > standards that will restrict the installation of new wood stoves in<br>> > > these areas. It will also require that during the worst air days<br>> > people<br>> > > in these areas use alternative heating sources if they have them.<br>> > Based<br>> > > on the history of recent years this type of restriction would only<br>> > > happen one or two days during the winter.<br>> > ><br>> > > There is a fairly lengthy public process involved in making<br>> > these rule<br>> > > changes that is just starting. If you would like to learn more<br>> > please<br>> > > visit the health department web site:<br>> > > http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/airquality/<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > We also learned about what the county health department is doing<br>> > about<br>> > > swine flu. They expect we will see it in Missoula before long since<br>> > > there is a lot of travel in and out of here. They have set up a<br>> > hotline<br>> > > and all doctors in the state are requested to send in samples from<br>> > > anyone with symptoms.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > The main item in Conservation was an update from the Conservation<br>> > > District. They get funding from a few mills in the taxes and do<br>> > a lot<br>> > of<br>> > > cool projects. My favorite is the cost sharing programs they<br>> > offer for<br>> > > weed and erosion control projects for land owners.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > We traded our PAZ time for COW today to have our quarterly OPG<br>> > review<br>> > > interlocal meeting with the county commissioners. This time we heard<br>> > all<br>> > > about the Missoula Forum for Children and Youth. This is an umbrella<br>> > > organization comprised of a number of entities that are all involved<br>> > in<br>> > > stuff like reducing teen drug and alcohol use and teen pregnancy. It<br>> > > reminded me of something Wolf A. from the job service was saying at<br>> > that<br>> > > Missoula Economy meeting this week. He talked about how we have all<br>> > > these different entities that do various parts of the economic<br>> > > development puzzle. In other places they have these services<br>> > coordinated<br>> > > together and can present prospective employers with a more complete<br>> > > package. I'm pretty sure he was suggesting we need something for the<br>> > > economic development world like the Forum is for youth substance<br>> > abuse<br>> > > and prevention programs.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > They have all sorts of great programs to provide activities, support<br>> > > families, and offer resources for troubled and at risk kids. The one<br>> > > piece that rubs me a little wrong is the whole<br>> > abstinence/prohibition<br>> > > approach to alcohol. They seem to understand that teaching kids<br>> > healthy<br>> > > choices about sex is more effective than teaching abstinence.<br>> > But they<br>> > > still think abstinence is the right approach with alcohol. I<br>> > lean more<br>> > > towards the idea that teenagers, especially 18+, should be learning<br>> > how<br>> > > to responsibly appreciate alcohol in an honest and open way. The<br>> > illicit<br>> > > nature of the whole thing leads to binge drinking and poor<br>> > decisions.<br>> > > That's my opinion but my kids are still a little young for this<br>> > to be<br>> > an<br>> > > issue for our family. Maybe I'll see it different in a few<br>> > years. The<br>> > > stats and pretty much all of our personal experience tell us that a<br>> > lot<br>> > > of teenagers drink. Pushing it all into the dark just seems like the<br>> > > wrong approach.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > In Public Works we heard a cool presentation about a project to put<br>> > > artwork on the big signal control electrical boxes around town. Here<br>> > is<br>> > > a link to the presentation with some neat pictures:<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/packets/council/2009/2009-04-27/Referrals/Tr<br>> > > afficSignalBoxArtAttch.pdf<br>> > ><br>> > > We also discussed waiving the noise ordinance for the reconstruction<br>> > of<br>> > > the Scott Street bridge this summer. They plan to work 16 hour days<br>> > and<br>> > > on some occasions straight through the night. The committee approved<br>> > the<br>> > > proposal but is expecting it to come back on Monday night with some<br>> > more<br>> > > specificity as to just how late they will go and how often.<br>> > ><br>> > > We revisited the discussion of offering some kind of temporary<br>> > discount<br>> > > for folks who hook up to sewer. It used to cost $350. Last year we<br>> > > raised it to $1400. This more accurately reflected the costs of the<br>> > > sewer development program. The issue was raised by someone who<br>> > received<br>> > > the notice that we were requiring folks to hook up when they sell<br>> > their<br>> > > property, but then waited a couple of years to actually come in<br>> > and do<br>> > > it. Then he found that the price went up 375%.<br>> > ><br>> > > As a compromise solution I moved that we offer a $500 rebate coupon<br>> > for<br>> > > any existing homeowners in the city who want to hook up to the sewer<br>> > > before 12/31/09. The money would come from the sewer development<br>> > fund.<br>> > > The fee wouldn't actually change so we would not have to go through<br>> > the<br>> > > routine of amending the ordinance. It would still be $1400 but a<br>> > chunk<br>> > > would be getting paid for by the sewer development fund. This way we<br>> > > give an incentive to folks to get switched over and give one more<br>> > chance<br>> > > for everybody to get the word that the price is going up. We<br>> > actually<br>> > > send them a $500 coupon as part of the publicity. The idea was still<br>> > > met with some skepticism but it narrowly passed. We will see what<br>> > > happens to it on Monday.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > I had to skip out on A&F for some work obligations so I'm not sure<br>> > what<br>> > > happened with the rest of the CIP discussions.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > Thanks for your interest,<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > Bob Jaffe<br>> > ><br>> > > Missoula City Council, Ward 3<br>> > ><br>> > > bjaffe@ci.missoula.mt.us <mailto:bjaffe@ci.missoula.mt.us><br>> > ><br>> > > 406-728-1052<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------<br>> > ><br>> > > Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula.<br>> > But<br>> > > posts to this list may be entered into the public record.<br>> > > Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org<br>> > > List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Stacy Rye<br>> > (406) 543-9784<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------<br>> ><br>> > Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of<br>> > Missoula. But<br>> > posts to this list may be entered into the public record.<br>> > Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org<br>> > List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.<br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------<br>> ><br>> > Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of<br>> > Missoula. But<br>> > posts to this list may be entered into the public record.<br>> > Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org<br>> > List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account<br>> > pertaining to<br>> > City business may be considered public or private records<br>> > depending on the<br>> > message content. The City is often required by law to provide city<br>> > records<br>> > to individuals requesting records, some of which are not public<br>> > records and<br>> > have limited scope of distribution pursuant to state law. The City is<br>> > required by law to protect private, confidential information. This<br>> > message<br>> > is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.<br>> > If you are<br>> > not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the<br>> > sender<br>> > immediately, do not forward the message to anyone, and delete all<br>> > copies.<br>> > Thank you.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------<br>> ><br>> > Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts<br>> > to this list may be entered into the public record. <br>> > Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org <br>> > List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. <br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------<br>> ><br>> > 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. <br>> > Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org <br>> > List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------<br>> <br>> 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. <br>> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org <br>> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. <br></body>
</html>