Ana səhifə

Journal of proceedings missoula city council meeting


Yüklə 157.08 Kb.
səhifə1/3
tarix24.06.2016
ölçüsü157.08 Kb.
  1   2   3



JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS

MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL MEETING

February 25, 2013



I.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

The meeting of the Missoula City Council was called to order by Mayor John Engen at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at 140 West Pine Street. The following members were present: Caitlin Copple, Dick Haines, Adam Hertz, Bob Jaffe, Marilyn Marler, Mike O'Herron, Dave Strohmaier, Alex Taft, Jon Wilkins, Cynthia Wolken, Ed Childers. The following members were absent: Jason Wiener. The following staff members were also present: Mayor John Engen, Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Bender, Communications Director Ginny Merriam, City Attorney Jim Nugent, Deputy City Clerk Nikki Rogers. The Board of County Commissioners were present: Jean Curtiss, Bill Carey, and Michele Landquist. The following staff members were absent: City Clerk Marty Rehbein, Finance Director/Treasurer Brentt Ramharter.



II.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES




1.

Minutes dated February 11, 2013




Minutes were approved as submitted.




III.

SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS




1.

Committee Schedule for the week of February 25, 2013
Public Safety & Health, February 27, 2013, 9:40 – 10:00 a.m.

Parks & Conservation, February 27, 2013, 10:05 – 11:00 a.m.

PAZ (Land Use and Planning Committee, February 27, 2013, 11:05 a.m. – Noon

Administration and Finance, February 27, 2013, 1:10 – 1:55 p.m.

Public Works Committee, February 27, 2013, 2:00 – 2:25 p.m.

Committee of the Whole, February 27, 2013, 2:30 – 3:55 p.m.



Economic Development Subcommittee, February 27, 2013, 4:00 – 5:30 p.m.




IV.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Marcinda Hammond, 1900 Strand, said she was here about five months ago. She said she was assaulted at a trailer that she owned, in the process of evicting a tenant from her trailer. The tenant moved and gave the keys to someone else. That person then put a hasp on her lock making it illegal for her to even get into her house. That person made a forged bill of sale. Nothing in the five months has been done. She has a restraining order against the person that attacked her but she’s also had them at her house. They have been at her house twice and she has to get another restraining order because her house which is supposed to be under her protection, she didn’t put her address on it and now they’re coming to her house. She had an officer call her and tell her an assault with a weapon has been changed to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. And now because nothing’s been done, she’s here looking at City Council with a laceration on her face that will not make her any better and nothing’s been done.





V.

CONSENT AGENDA




1.

Claims totaling $402,720.25 with checks dated February 19, 2013.




Recommended motion:




Approve claims totaling $402,720.25 with checks dated February 19, 2013.




2.

Claims totaling $392,047.51 dated February 26, 2013




Recommended motion:




Approve claims totaling $392,047.51 with checks dated February 26, 2013.




3.

Impact Fee Advisory Committee Council Appointment




Recommended motion:




Appoint Elaine Hawk to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee for the term commencing immediately through November 30, 2014.




4.

Approve the Economic Development Subcommittee’s recommendation to contract with BREDD to write a grant to fund a feasibility study on GigaPOP




Recommended motion:




Approve the Economic Development Subcommittee’s recommendation to contract with BREDD to write a grant to fund a feasibility study on GigaPOP.




5.

Council appointments to the Design Review Board




Recommended motion:




Appoint Karen Slobod to the Design Review Board for the term beginning immediately and ending on December 31, 2015.




6.

Approve the additional funding implementing the Metro Ethernet Project.




Recommended motion:




Support the fiber optic upgrade using the State of Montana contract with Century Link.




7.

Award bid for physical security electronics and video surveillance.




Recommended motion:




Award the bid for physical security electronics and video surveillance to Integrated Security Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $76,524.30 with 10 percent ($7,600) contingency in budget and authorize the return of bid bonds.




8.

Review contract for Professional Services for Upgrades to the East Broadway Lift Station




Recommended motion:




Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract between the City of Missoula and Morrison-Maierle Engineering Inc. for professional services for upgrades to the East Broadway Lift Station.




Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Rogers. Anyone in the audience care to comment on any of the items on the consent agenda this evening? Seeing none, questions or comments from Councilmembers? Seeing none, we’ll have a roll call vote.
Upon a roll call vote, the vote on the consent agenda was as follows:
AYES: Childers, Copple, Haines, Hertz, Jaffe, Marler, O’Herron, Strohmaier, Taft, Wilkins, Wolken
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Wiener
Motion carried: 11 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstain, 1 Absent
Mayor Engen said, and the consent agenda stands approved.





VI.

COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF, AGENCIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AUTHORITIES AND THE COMMUNITY FORUM – None




VII.

PUBLIC HEARINGS




1.

(Joint Public Hearing with the County Commissioners) Amendments to the Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program.




Recommended motion:




Adopt a resolution to support new Missoula City/County Air Pollution Control Program rules.




Mayor Engen said, we are joined this evening for a joint public hearing on an Air Pollution Control matter by members of the Missoula County Board of Commissioners. Commissioners, welcome. Thank you for being here this evening and we have a staff report from Mr. Carlson.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, also with me this evening are Ben Schmidt and Sara Coffield who will assist me in answering questions if necessary. We’re here to consider amendments that have been through two public hearings at the Air Pollution Control Board for the City-County Air Pollution Control Program. It’s…the program is actually a regulatory document. The changes that we’ll be talking about are from Chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14. You have received in your packet full copies of the regulations as well as resolutions for both the City and County Commissioners, and a summary, a more in depth summary of the regulatory changes that I will be giving in this presentation a sheet that notes a correspondence that we’ve had and mailings and publications concerning the hearings for the Air Pollution Control Board, a detailed record of comments during those hearings as well as response to comments, and findings concerning Montana Code Annotated 75-2-301 which are necessary findings that the Air Pollution Control Board must make to approve regulations. The timeline and process for approving amendments to the Air Pollution Control Program is that the Air Pollution Control Board may approve, amend or reject amendments after public hearing. As I indicated, two public hearings have taken place. After Board approval, amendments must be approved or vetoed by the City Council and the County Commissioners. These bodies, however, do not have a mandatory authority so this is either a ratification or a denial with regard to these rules. And then to finally have the regulations go into effect, we submit them to the Montana Board of Environmental Review for approval as to compliance with the Montana Clean Air Act and they become effective upon the approval of the Board of Review. As I indicated, the Air Pollution Control Board held hearings on the changes October 18th, 2012 and November 15th, 2012 and approved those amendments on November 15th, 2012, and forwarded them to the City Council and County Commissioners. The point we’re at legally is the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council may approve or veto the Board’s Amendments and revisions by resolution at a public meeting. I’ll go quickly through the proposed amendments. In Chapter 4 there’s a rule change that fixes a mistake or typographical error to ensure that the amendment would ensure that we don’t have mandatory shut-down of industry when forest fire smoke is the primary pollutant. Of course, it wouldn’t serve no purpose when we’re being predominated by nearby forest fires. Chapter 6, the main changes provide for portable industrial sources such as gravel crushers, portable asphalt plants, portable wood chippers that are not located in the woods but instead in an industrial site. Maybe issue a temporary permit in Missoula County while the source is submitting a full application for permitting in Missoula County if they already have a DEQ permit. Missoula County is the only county in the state that has the authority to issue permits for industrial sources that are of a size up to about 250 tons per year emissions. So these smaller sources sometimes want to move into the County quickly because someone has a need for that device to be used, a paving project, a crushing project, a wood chipping project, and there’s a lengthy application process that they’ve already been through with the State of Montana. We would recognize the fact that they’ve gone through that process. They’d also be required to apply to our program but while they’re in the process of switching their permit to a valid one in Missoula County, we would give them the right to operate under the…essentially under the state permit, although it would be a Missoula County temporary permit that’s being issued. There’s also some changes that deal with clarifying the process for contested case permits in three different rules in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7 we’re refining the definition of bonfire and, in fact, making it very similar to the City’s definition of bonfire because we’ve had some folks in the County celebrating birthdays and other private parties. The definition of bonfire essentially requires that to have a large fire like that it has to be for an educational or institutional event like homecomings and those sorts of things, not to celebrate birthdays or the fact that beer’s on sale or whatever. In Rule 7.106, there’s a modification to require permit activation in order to follow the electronic permitting process and this chapter deals with outdoor burning. As you’re probably all aware, last year we switched over to electronic permitting of outdoor burning in Missoula County and this allows us to coordinate our regulations to that new process. In 7.107, we’re also clarifying major burners’ responsibilities in following air shed restrictions when in the fall primarily we have some days when it’s okay to burn and other days when it’s not okay to burn and we’re making some changes to make sure that people that are operating under a major burner permit have the legal responsibility to follow all the restrictions that our office issues. In Chapter 8, most of the changes are essentially to provide for allowing people to pave with block pavers rather than just asphalt and concrete and making some word changes because, for example, the term “geoblock” which is currently used in the regulation is actually a trademark word and has caused some confusion. So, there’s a number of changes there but we feel they’re appropriate and they allow more options for people to pave with pavers as opposed to just concrete and asphalt. In Chapter 9, there’s a couple of changes. Currently, in our Air Pollution Regulations we do not allow, some point by accident, licensed mobile food services to use a solid fuel burning device that’s installed inside of the mobile facility because we have restrictions that limit what can be installed in the air stagnation zone essentially to pellet stoves. However, folks that have a device that’s sitting outside of their mobile food establishment are allowed to do that. It’s actually safer from a food safety standpoint to have the device inside where they don’t have the potential of contamination, taking the meat in and out and that sort of thing. And we’ve had requests from people that operate these kinds of facilities to do that and we are providing for that except that they wouldn’t be able to use them during the winter months when woodstove emissions are a problem. In 401, there’s some correction for incorrect references and in 402 we require…would be requiring now that all new solid fuel burning devices sold in the County must be labeled as to where they can legally installed. Currently, now, we have three sets of regulations, one that applies to the air stagnation zone which is essentially pellets only, the rest…most of the rest of the County people can install new stoves but they have to be EPA certified and then north of the divide or essentially in the Swan River drainage in the County, there are no regulations. So, this is to make sure that when people have devices in their store that they’re labeled as to where they can be installed because we have had situations where people have purchased either uncertified devices and installed them in the County or certified devices and installed them in the air stagnation zone but they aren’t pellet stoves, simply from confusion. So, that’s the intent there. And in Chapter 14, in conjunction with the chapters…the changes made in Chapter 6, it disallows a request for administrative review during a permitting action but continues to allow for administrative review and enforcement action. A few years ago we amended our regulations to allow for administrative review in all enforcement and permitting actions but recently we found that in the permitting process, because the department is so careful and so thorough in issuing its permits, that when somebody asks for an administrative review in a permitting process, the department ends up essentially reviewing its own work and its own activities and it simply serves to use up time but not much other purpose. So, we’re pulling that back out of this process, however, in an enforcement action where we give somebody a notice of violation in order to take corrective action, they do have the ability to ask for a departmental review before they can go on to the Air Pollution Control Board. And, finally, in Chapter 14.107, we’re clarifying the timing and process for requesting a Board hearing during a source permitting process. And that is a summary of these rule changes. The request is that the Missoula City Council and the County Commissioners pass respected resolutions approving the amendments to the Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program. If there are any questions, we stand ready to attempt to answer them.

Mayor Engen said, thank you, sir. On behalf of the City of Missoula, I will open the public hearing on this question.

Commissioner Landquist said, on behalf of Missoula County, I will open the hearing on this question.
Mayor Engen said, anyone care to comment on these changes? Seeing none, on behalf of the City, I’ll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Landquist said, I’ll ask the same question. Does anybody care to make any comment on these? Any questions from my fellow Commissioners at this point? Then I’ll close the public hearing.
Mayor Engen said, and are there questions from Council? Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, thank you. I had a few for Mr. Carlson.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson?
Alderman Jaffe said, first is could you touch on the process again as far as gaining input on this…these changes? Some of these things are the sort of things that will have an impact on a number of different industries and commercial entities and I’m…just want to find out or just confirm that people who are going to be impacted by the new regulations…have you gotten any feedback from people?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, of course you have in your packet the comments from the hearings in the Air Pollution Control Board and with regard to public outreach, of course, we’ve had ads that were in the paper, actually in the Independent October 4th and October 11th and mailings were made to all of the interested parties on the Air Pollution Control Program’s interested party list. These regulations are also sent through the Air Pollution Advisory Council for their comment. The information was posted on the web. Because we recognize probably the major impact here with regard to regulatory tightening was the woodstove labeling change, we sent a letter to all of the woodstove dealers in Missoula County with a copy of those regulatory changes on October 5th, and another interested party’s email went out for the November 15th second hearing that the Air Pollution Control Board held.
Alderman Jaffe said, alright, thanks. The other question I have, first, on the pavers, the part about allowing for more flexibility on paving materials, do you know if…I think that’s also regulated, I think, in our Title 12 with the Engineering…has there been any coordination to line those things up or do you know anything about it? Has our Engineering Department adjusted the rules there also?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, I’m not aware of that. I know a lot of the requests that we’ve had for pavers have been for parking areas.
Alderman Jaffe said, right and anyway I think we have some City regulations that might need to be put in sync with that. And then the last thing was with the outdoor burning for the bonfires.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, uh-huh.
Alderman Jaffe said, could you clarify what sort of bonfires, as defined here, it’s defined as anything with more than a two-foot diameter.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, that’s correct.
Alderman Jaffe said, so, is it…are you allowed to have fires bigger than two feet across or is it only during burn restriction periods or when does that come into play?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, a fire that’s outside of the City, a fire that’s two-feet in diameter or larger is considered a bonfire and you can have recreational fires in and out of the City essentially. In the City it has to be being used for cooking and now likewise in the County. But the bonfire, excuse me, the bonfire…yes, a fire’s that’s bigger than two feet in diameter requires a permit essentially and it’s…
Alderman Jaffe said, all year round?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, yes, all year round.
Alderman Jaffe said, okay.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, when there are general fire restrictions, sometimes they get severe enough that the Mayor or the Commissioners or both restrict all burning and then those recreational fires aren’t allowed at all due to fire changer. And that’s for fire purposes, not air quality purposes.
Alderman Jaffe said, yeah. I have a little con…that might be an area I might wish to make an amendment on. I mean, I think the fire rings at the sled hill at Blue Mountain are bigger than that, you know, now there’s those rings up there.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, yeah, of course you can have rings that are bigger than that but the fuel itself should be two feet in length or less.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson, my recollection Mr. Jaffe mentioned amendment. This is an up or down for us, correct?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, that’s correct.
Mayor Engen said, other questions? Mr. Hertz?
Alderman Hertz said, is there a significant difference in standards between the Missoula County Air Quality permit and the Montana permit that might result in somebody having their Montana permit and not meeting the guidelines of the Missoula permit?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, for industrial sources the emissions requirement are the same…
Alderman Hertz said, I guess…
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, under our rules and under the state rules for industrial sources.
Alderman Hertz said, so then why is there a Missoula County Industrial Source Permit for this if they’re the same?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, we have a local program and when we’re able to get out quickly and make inspections, the state sometimes may take up to eight months and, in fact, not inspect sources like gravel crushers or asphalt plants before they’ve completed their job and moved on. And the main controls, especially for gravel crushers, are spray bars and having water available and because we are here in Missoula and can respond quickly, once they set up, we usually go out within a day or so and make an inspection and make sure they have all they’re push control equipment in place. But the reason for it underlying is that Missoula County and City years and years ago applied for that authority under the Montana Clean Air Act and were granted it by the state at that time, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences Board, and now that’s become the Board of Environmental Review.
Alderman Hertz said, so the County may be quicker to respond and get those people in business quicker than the state?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, in business and make sure they’re in compliance with what they’re supposed to be doing when they set up to make asphalt or crush gravel.
Alderman Hertz said, thanks.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Haines?
Alderman Haines said, we’ve burn on our property every year for 15 years in the spring, brush and dead limbs and stuff like that and we’ve always had the Fire Department issue the permit, come and look at where we were working and this kind of thing. Is that process gone now?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, no, the process isn’t gone but it’s electronic and they will wait until they’ve gone out and take a look at it, I believe. Sara’s here to answer that. She handles that part of the program until they’ll take a look at it and make sure it’s okay and then the…
Alderman Haines said, yeah, I…
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, permits are released on the computer system.
Alderman Haines said, let me interrupt you just a minute. I…I…yeah, I’m not worried about the electronic permission. We’ve got that down. I’m just trying to reconcile this kind of burning with this bonfire-type thing. You know…
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, okay.
Alderman Haines said,…you throw on a bunch of dead limbs and stuff and for 10 minutes or so there’s a pretty good blaze and then it settles down and you can…
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, right.
Alderman Haines said, I always have the water and everything like that there and the Fire Department’s been happy but I’m not sure how that…it almost seems to me like a bonfire.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, burning in wild lands areas or undeveloped areas for the purpose of fuel reduction is still allowed and those fires can be and are much larger than two feet.
Alderman Haines said, no, this is in a backyard.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, right, in the City or in the County?
Alderman Haines said, it’s in the City.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, if you are on a parcel of…
Alderman Haines said, it’s one acre or larger…
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, larger than an acre, you may burn in the City for fire reduction purposes. If you transport the wood out of the wild area or unkempt area or whatever for whatever purposes, you’re still allowed to do that as long as you’re burning natural materials.
Alderman Haines said, it looks to me like maybe time will tell. I guess there could be some confusion there about what you can or cannot do. Thank you.
Mayor Engen said, any other questions? Mr. Wilkins?
Alderman Wilkins said, so, is there any…is there a restriction on a business that might use solid fuels in there…like a steakhouse or a, you know, I guess we have pizza ovens that are sometimes use, that they use with wood and stuff like that.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, you can use the minimum amounts of wood in cooking based on a policy that we’ve adopted but you cannot install a device in the air stagnation zone that’s entirely solid fuel fed. So, people do use small amounts of wood for flavorant and that sort of thing but they can’t have a wholly wood fired pizza or something like that because that violates the emissions standards of the regulations for solid fuel burning devices.
Mayor Engen said, Commissioner?
Commissioner Carey said, thank you, Mayor. Jim, MIST made a couple of comments on this and the Department’s response was that they weren’t part of the proposed rule changes. Did their comments just kind of die on the vine or what’s the status of what they suggested in terms of different language?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, they were addressing sections that weren’t being amended in therefore there was no public notice and, yeah, that…the comment can only be on the regulatory changes or the sections that are affected by regulatory changes. If you talk on, you know, comment on something else that isn’t being changed, then we’re not allowed to consider that in that hearing.
Commissioner Carey said, is there…yeah, is there or will there be an effort to perhaps take a look at their proposals and see if we can use them?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, as I recall, are you talking about using…]
Commissioner Carey said, their definition of paved was broader than what you’ve got here and they also wanted to take a look at the roadway section language with regards to allowable surfaces.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, yeah, I know one of their comments where, and I may ask Ben to come up and talk about that a little too, but one of their comments was using soils cements which can be things like liquipel sulphonate and other organic cements, pulp mill wastes, that sort of thing. They tend to do a good job of taking care of emissions from dusty roads and that sort of thing but during the winter and spring when it’s wet, they get muddy and not that the road is emitting at that time, then there’s a huge amount of carryout onto paved surfaces, the sun comes out and things dry and we have a large amount of emissions. So, those kinds of materials work great for controlling dust on County roads and that sort of thing but in a situation where you’re trying to have continuous clean paving surfaces that don’t emit a lot of particulate, they do not work well and I’m not sure that they understood the difference or our needs for requiring paving. It has to be durable essentially in all weather conditions. I hope I answered your question.
Commissioner Carey said, thank you.
Mayor Engen said, Commissioner?
Commissioner Curtiss said, Mr. Mayor, the…I sit on the Air Pollution Control Board and so we didn’t ignore their comments by any means and I know that the Advisory Council also listened to it and there are some projects in town where they’re using it on some of the trails so in the future maybe they can use there and they’re being monitored and that kind of thing, but they weren’t part of the regulations that were noticed for the hearing but we did listen to their concerns.
Mayor Engen said, any additional questions? Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, a question for Mr. Nugent or maybe, I don’t know, for one of you guys to…as far as…I’m not quite clear on why this can’t be amended. I mean, are these our regulations or someone else’s regulations and if they’re not ours, why are we talking about it?
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Nugent, do you want to take a pass at that?
City Attorney Nugent said, we’re not the legal advisors to the Health Department so we’re not involved in this process at all.
Alderman Jaffe said, so why are we voting on this at all?
City Attorney Nugent said, ask the Health Department. They brought it to us.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, okay.
Mayor Engen said, that was a punt.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, the Montana Clean Air Act provides for local air pollution control programs and in the process of setting up that program these regulations have to provide for administrative process. Those regulations were approved originally by the Board of…excuse me, the Air Pollution Control Board which is the same membership as the City-County Health Board. They have quasi legislative authority but the Clean Air Act also require that the County Commissioners in any cities that exist within the regulatory authority of that program have approval authority. But to be able to have an amendatory legislative process that could include the Air Pollution Control Board and then the City Council and then the County Commissioners, any one of which could make amendments, is difficult. The Air Pollution Control Board, of course, is made of half appointees by the City and half by the County and one that’s jointly appointed as…and includes an elected official from both local bodies. So, when you originally approved these regulations, we set up this regulatory approval process that must include the Air Pollution Control Board, local elected officials, bodies and the Board of Environmental Review but it only provides for approval or veto after the amendatory public hearings have been held by the Air Pollution Control Board.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson, is that a product of an interlocal agreement?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, no, it’s a…well, the Air Pollution Control Board’s membership is a product of the interlocal but the regulations themselves are a product of the Montana Clean Air Act, which contains an entire section that deals with local air pollution control programs.
Mayor Engen said, so, they that act defines this process.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, to a degree and then this process in previous amendments defines how it works. I mean, it’s been up to us to set it up and we’ve made many, many changes over the years and this is the way it’s been done, so the Air Pollution Control Board is the primary legislative body and the elected officials, at this point, have approval or denial power.
Mayor Engen said, Commissioner?
Commissioner Curtiss said, I think maybe to put it in more layman terms, the Board of Health, the Air Quality Control Board and the Water Quality Board all have, as Jim explains, some legislative authorities and then this Board, your Board and ours, ratify. So, the amendatory part of it takes place in the public hearings where it should and you have…Mr. Childers is now your representative on that Board but that’s where if you had an amendment, you as a member of the public or as a Councilperson could have amended it.
Alderman Jaffe said, just a quick follow-up.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, yeah, I believe this is a public hearing as well. I, you know, this is all good stuff and I support it. There’s just one goofy thing and they’re about bonfires that I think is ridiculous and it should be fixed, but it’s not…I’m not going to vote against it because of that. I think the process should be looked at. I mean, we actually have something that says we can’t amend it, you know, I’d like to see that…maybe review that but it can be done in the context of another, you know, something outside the moment of trying to do this. But, in any case, I’ll still…I still intend to support it.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Strohmaier?
Alderman Strohmaier said, yeah, that seems…it all seems pretty crazy in terms of our inability to amend. In fact, I would certainly want to keep that in mind for the next legislative session is something to maybe fix by statute. But my question would be, if there is some item, be it bonfires or something else that we would want to see changed or addressed and run through the process, what might that look like? I would be ashamed to deny the whole thing tonight and send it all back to start from scratch. Would we, as the governing body, make a recommendation to take a look at some specific piece of language for potential amendment for a subsequent amendment?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, yeah, actually I had the language up on the wall but a section of the regulations specifies the process for approving these and those too can be amended by the three bodies and I’m sure if the City wants to request that we do that, we would bring that forward to the Air Pollution Control Board. I should point out with the bonfire language that what we’re doing with the bonfire language that what we’re doing with the bonfire language is bringing the County language into line with the current language that’s in the City ordinance, so…to make sure people aren’t just, like I said, there’s been a number of public nuisance problems caused by people just having big fires continuously in their yard all summer long and causing a lot of problems for their neighbors and their neighbors’ children.
Mayor Engen said, Commissioner?
Commissioner Landquist said, I guess I’m also having problems with the definition of the bonfire permit for the County process because the County is not the City and I know of at least one business, and I’m not going to rat them out publicly, that has a large area all clear and everything on a regular basis for recreational bonfires, and a lot of people sit around that great big ring. Is there some process…first of all, and I don’t think that this definition that the people in the County have followed any of your ads and have any idea what’s happening to them. I think it’s going to be problematic for the County and take a lot of people by surprise, this bonfire definition and the size of it. But is there some process that, this one particular business that I’m thinking of, could go through to bring it to your attention to be permitted for their bonfire. It’s part of their business, part of what they offer, winter and summer.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, if it’s part of a legitimate celebration, you’ve got the definition there, that’s what we’re supposed to be approving, but we’ve also had lots and lots of requests, as you may be aware, particularly in a neighborhood down in Lolo where there’s been a lot of problems by people taking advantage of the recreational fire aspect of it…
Commissioner Landquist said, I know.
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, and we’ve been unable to protect those neighbors from the adverse consequences of that situation and there’s been a number of other ones that haven’t been quite as persistent.
Mayor Engen said, additional questions? Mr. Hertz?
Alderman Hertz said, yeah, I’m also concerned about the bonfire issue and I’m just curious what the enforcement of that is. I mean, let’s say that somebody is on Seeley Lake in the summer, having a 2-1/2 foot bonfire. Does the Sheriff’s office show up and measure it and put it out and…
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, we respond to things on the basis of complaints and for the most part, you know, if there’s de minimis violations of things, we talk to people, so does the City Fire Departments and the County Rural Departments and people generally comply, but it has been a problem for some neighborhoods. And, as I said, the current language in the City is what we’re shadowing for what happens outside of the City.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Carlson, how long have the current bonfire regulations been in place in the City of Missoula?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, I want to say the last time we made those changes was somewhere on the order of 20 years.
Mayor Engen said, thank you. Mr. Childers?
Alderman Childers said, thanks, Mayor. If I can just make a comment on process, would you be offended? Nah, you wouldn’t be offended. The complexity of something when you’ve got at least three and more bodies that all have to go through the same thing and all have to come up with the same answer is immense and there’s a reason why it’s set up so that this body and the County Commissioners can either approve or deny, but that’s a choice. If the bonfire piece is sufficiently egregious that either body wants to deny, that’s the way it is and the Health Department will understand why and the Health Department and the Health Board and Air Quality Board will all go back through and if it’s in the public interest, try to modify such things so that they approve it…everybody approves them. But, I mean, there’s no reason why everybody that it gets in front of should try to amend to their satisfaction. There’s…it’s too hard. So, why don’t we just pass it. I don’t think anybody’s really mad at what’s in there now and if there are amendments that either body thinks should be made, we’ll take them back and take a look at them. If the City Council wants something, I’d be happy to carry it. If the Commissioners want something, I’m sure Ms. Curtiss would be happy to do the same.
Mayor Engen said, are there further questions? Mr. Haines?
Alderman Haines said, it’s not a question, Mr. Mayor, but I’d sure like to talk…I’ll support this but I don’t think you and I are on the same page yet and I’m just trying to get that so we have an understanding of that. Thank you.
Mayor Engen said, other questions? Alright, which committee handled this for us? Committee of the Whole? Public Safety? Thank you. Mr. Wilkins?
Alderman Wilkins said, Mr. Mayor, City Council, adopt a resolution to support new Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program rules.
Mayor Engen said, Mr. Wilkins’ motion is in order. Is there discussion on the motion? Mr. Jaffe?
Alderman Jaffe said, I’d like us to consider amending our resolution, not the draft but possibly a resolution. Are there any other changes in Chapter 7 besides that bonfire piece?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, yes, there are. There were some changes that…
Mayor Engen said, I’ve got you, Ms. Matthew-Jenkins. We’ve had a public hearing but I’ll let you talk as soon as we’re done with…
Kandi Matthew-Jenkins said, before the vote?
Mayor Engen said, yes, ma’am.
Kandi Matthew-Jenkins said, thank you.
Alderman Jaffe said, did you have a slide that highlighted just those changes?
Jim Carlson, Director of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department, said, yeah, and actually my…
Alderman Jaffe said, thanks. Alright, never mind. I was going to consider dropping our approval of those changes in that section but there’s other stuff that’s relevant.
Mayor Engen said, further discussion on the motion? Alright, before we vote, Ms. Matthew-Jenkins on the motion before the body.
Kandi Mathew-Jenkins said, I just wanted to add to the information because I have personal information of the situation that I didn’t know I had until everything was said. I think that we’re talking about a situation, although it’s my mother-in-law’s home and it’s my brother-in-law that has been…they’re having small fires in the…in his yard in the evenings or whenever, maybe all night, I’m not quite sure and that the Lolo Rural Fire Department and everybody’s paid attention to it so I think you’re getting a little bit of a snow job here, that it’s not massive problems throughout the County, so I think you better take into consideration that maybe one complaint from one person that’s already been dealt with within the community and it’s just that there are some disgruntled people that keep pushing it forward. So, I think you need to find out exactly how many bonfires there are in the County that are not supposed to be, before you vote. Just wanted to let you know.
Mayor Engen said, in the interest of fairness, anyone else care to comment? Alright, with that, we’ve had a public hearing. We’ve got a motion before the body. We’ve had discussion on that motion. We’ll have a roll call vote on the motion.
RESOLUTION 7757
MOTION
Alderman Wilkins made a motion to adopt a resolution to support new Missoula City/County Air Pollution Control Program rules.
Upon a roll call vote, the vote on Resolution 7757 was as follows:
AYES: Childers, Copple, Jaffe, Marler, O’Herron, Strohmaier, Taft, Wilkins, Wolken
NAYS: Haines, Hertz
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Wiener
Resolution 7757 carried: 9 Ayes, 2 Nays, 0 Abstain, 1 Absent
Mayor Engen said, thank you, the motion is approved. Commissioner?
Commissioner Landquist said, fellow Commissioners, do you have any more questions or comments on this? I guess the only comment I have and I support the work that the Air Board has done, but I still have heartburn over the County folks being treated like City folks and I think that if I felt comfortable that amendment would be made to it for clarifying, I mean, maybe people that live in subdivisions in the County portion should have a size attached to theirs, but when you’re a little bit more rural, you think a little bit bigger. You probably have more people over and your fire may be a little bigger. And, in particular, this one business that I’m looking at, I think that maybe they should be able to have a permit and I don’t think it’s been vetted well, so on that basis I, for one, will not be voting in favor of it but I’m confident that you probably will be. So, if you want to make a motion, that’s fine. I’ve said my piece.
Commissioner Curtiss said, I would move that we adopt the resolution ratifying the amendments to the Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Board as proposed.
Commissioner Landquist said, is there a second?
Commissioner Carey said, I second the motion.
Commissioner Landquist said, okay, there’s a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
Commissioners said, aye.
Commissioner Landquist said, any opposed, say nay. Nay. Motion carries, two to one.
Mayor Engen said, thank you, folks. Thanks, Commissioners, for joining us this evening. We appreciate your time and efforts.





2.

City Subdivision Exemption Request--714 & 714 1/2 Cooley Street--Rock Boundary Line Relocation
  1   2   3


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət