<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>Greetings,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In conservation this morning we discussed parkland
possibilities in the Franklin to the Fort neighborhood. There are two good
potential sites. The parcel owned by MRL just north of the mall, and the forest
service storage depot. There have also been discussions with some private
land owners regarding some smaller parcels. Considering that the forest service
piece is already in public ownership it is probably the best possibility. In
talks with the district a few years ago the word was that the forest service
had no interest in changing things on that site in the foreseeable future.
Both Dick and Dave, who have worked extensively with the forest service thought
this could be a more fruitful discussion if it were higher up the chain of
command at the regional or national levels. It’s a 13 acre site. I’ve
heard that the objections had more to do with finding new buildings than the open
storage area. Maybe we could just pick up the back five acres. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>PAZ was a challenge today. We had our pre-public
hearing informational meeting on the zoning rewrite. Roger did a presentation
on the substantive changes and controversial issues. We then got through
a few questions and comments when Dave asked the five signers of Tuesday’s
editorial if they were intending to participate in an effort to approve the
document or if they were of the opinion that it was so fatally flawed that they
were going to vote against it no matter what. I allowed them each to
speak their piece in response which consumed pretty much all the remaining
time. It was painful to give so much quality committee and air time to so
much bad information but there was also some real value in it. One of the
complaints I often hear is that these folks just lob ambiguous objections to
everything that serve to cloud the issues and confuse people who are less
informed. Today I heard itemized lists of objections and issues
articulated in a way that they can be taken up and responded to. But I do
have some doubts about the productivity of the discussion since a number of
those issues have been responded to numerous times already. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Renee again brought up the idea that this was just supposed
to be a cleanup of the code with no substantive changes. On two occasions in
the last few weeks we have received documentation on how it was pointed out
that it would be impossible and wasteful to take on the task without addressing
some of the substantive issues. The council members commented significantly on
the expanded scope and there were 11 votes for it. To say that we didn’t
know what we were voting for and that somehow the agenda was secretly changed
is simply flat out false. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The issue of the second legal opinion on whether this
process is a general amendment or a change to property owner’s zoning is
also still a sore spot. It is true that Ed refused to take up the idea of
hiring an outside attorney in COW. But all the same we received one from
the staff attorney for the National Association of Home Builders compliments of
MBIA. Their attorney supports the decision of our city attorney. But Lynn
said she has spoken to numerous land use attorneys who say we are wrong. I
would like their names so I can also learn their objections.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Mr. Wilkins had concerns about anything in the new code that
allowed for additional salable lots. There are a few changes that allow for
some parcels that could now have duplexes or two detached homes in a single
ownership to now have two homes on two parcels. Jon’s position is that
this hurts affordability since the value of these parcels goes up once you can
split them. I would agree that the value of the parcel goes up but it
also creates two homes that are more affordable. Where before you had one home
for say $300,000, now you have two homes for $200,000. So the overall value
went up but it also has created more affordable homes. Jon suggested that
the duplex is better since it creates rentals that are needed and helps create
income for the resident owner. I would make that same argument for why we
need more ADU’s. With duplexes you are more likely to get two rentals
with a non-resident owner. I agree we need more rentals but I’m a fan of creating
more opportunities for home ownership. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>This is exactly the sort of policy discussion we should be
having. Hopefully we can spend more time on this sort of stuff rather than the
merits of sending yet another mailing to every homeowner in Missoula. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In the end Lynn made a motion to send the whole thing back
to planning board to reconsider again but this time as a rezoning. She
also wants a mailing to every property owner explaining exactly what the new
code would do to their specific property. We were unable to get to a vote
on this today so it is still hanging and will need to be addressed at our next
meeting. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In A&F we approved the lease agreement for the 2009
equipment purchases and the sale of bonds for misc. curb, gutter, and sidewalks
and the improvements to Pineview park.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In public works we took up the motions to order in sidewalks
and approve the bids for the project on Lolo street. I believe the motions
failed with just four or five of us voting so we will discuss this further on
Monday. We also discussed establishing a school speed zone on Reserve street at
CS Porter. The issues were whether it should be a 24X7 reduction or a 7-5
with the blinking lights. 35 mph vs. 30 mph. was also discussed. I believe the
way we sent it to the floor was for a 24X7 reduction to 35 with the blinking
lights reducing it further to 30 from 7am to 5pm. We need to hear back from MDT
if they will go for that idea.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In BCOW we were going to discuss the employee benefits
committee and the health plan stuff. Unfortunately I had to cut out to help
with some family stuff so I don’t know how that went.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks for your interest,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Bob Jaffe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Missoula City Council, Ward 3<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>1225 South 2nd West<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Missoula, MT 59801<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>(406) 728-1052<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>