Greetings, This morning in Public Safety we learned all about the HealthDepartments efforts to battle the H1N1 flu virus. There was a lot of information but what I retained was that the virus is not really that bigof a deal in these parts. People are getting it but it is a low intensityflu. Children and elderly are more susceptible. People between 25 and64 are low risk. Tamiflu works well but it is only recommended to highrisk people because we want to save it and we also don’t want the bugto develop resistance by over exposure. There is also a vaccine but it isa little late. Since the virus is blowing all over Missoula people aregetting exposed before they can get vaccinated. Then we had a morning Administration and Finance meeting. Weapproved a contract for the financing of our Capital Improvementsloans. We then took up the matter of passing a resolution andauthorizing some kind of marker to commemorate the centennial of the IWW free speech events that took place in Missoula back in 1909. Itis a pretty interesting history. Back then free speech and assemblywere not considered to be rights that could be exercised in public. Isuppose people could say what they want at a gathering in a privatehall but not on the street. So the union leaders started a protest wherethey would stand up on a soap box on the corner of Higgins and Frontand speak out for worker rights. They got arrested for it and started aprotest movement where they called folks from all over the country tocome and speak up and get arrested. Folks flowed in and before longthey were getting arrested for reading from the constitution and the billof rights. Between the bad press Missoula was getting and theincredible cost of feeding all these people in jail, the city decided to letthem all out of jail, change the policy, and let them speak on their soapbox. The union declared victory and took this strategy to other citiesaround the country in a movement that eventually changed the laws inthis country to allow free speech in public places.All but Renee Mitchell were in favor of the resolution. She was hung upon putting some kind of monument where it may be an obstruction onthe sidewalk.Next we had Public Works. The main subject of discussion was the saferoutes to school grant to build bulb outs and handicap sidewalk rampsaround Paxson school. We approved the contract but there was somepublic comment expressing dissatisfaction with the way the Bike/Pedoffice in the public works department had worked with the bike/pedboard regarding bulbout design and project location choices. I’mthinking we will probably here more about that soon. In PAZ we were back to considering Clark Fork Terrace #1. This is toocomplicated to explain all the details but I’ll try to get to the heart of it

for folks familiar with the general situation. If you want morebackground just get a hold of me and I’ll tell you more than you wantto know. This whole project is south of the interstate in east Missoulasouth of the canyon river golf course. CFT2 is the parcel along the river.CFT1 is just to the west in between CFT2 and Deer Creek rd. CFT2 wasapproved a year or so ago and then the developer sued us. We wanteda trail along the river and some other stuff and he didn’t want to give itto us. So that project is in court. Both sides are very likely to appealwhatever decision comes to the Montana supreme court so we won’tsee any resolution there for at least three years. The decision before us is if we want to annex CFT1 or do we want to killthe project. There are lots of reasons to not annex this property.Among them is the fear that this developer (or his attorney) will screwus if we give him the chance. So maybe best to just take a pass on hisproject. I voted in favor of the annexation. Here are my reasons. Myinterest is in seeing the trail system completed out there. Thesubdivision itself looks OK. But there are some special trail connectionsout there. This subdivision sits in between the new state park at the oldMilltown damn site and the Kim William’s trail into town. It also sits inbetween the connection from the Canyon River loop trail and the futureextensions of the Kim William’s trail. We are always big these days ontrail connectivity giving the residents of the subdivision non-motorizedaccess to the outside world. In this case there are importantconnections in three directions. The trail connection on the south end of the this property cannot beseparated from the law suit. There are two choices of where it can runbut the piece that goes past CFT2 will have to be the same as the partby CFT1. So I think we are stuck waiting for the outcome of the suit onthat one.But to the north the developer has offered us 300 feet of river fronttrail which will then connect over to the internal road network andsidewalks that take you to the trail that runs adjacent to Deer Creekroad and to the future Kim Williams Trail. By building this section alongthe river this triggers the terms of the agreement with Canyon River tomake them build their portion of the trail along the river. So I’m infavor of laying down our only card in this deal to secure the 300 feet of trail and the Canyon river portion of the trail. If we don’t annex, andthen we lose the law suit we not only lose the river trail in CFT2 but welose the trail in Canyon River. Maybe we could negotiate somethinglater when he ultimately brings CFT1 back in but I think we are in abetter position right now to get the connection. There are still a lot of unknowns here and there is very little trust from the council. We prettymuch want any offers signed in blood before we will consider them.So considering our position over the barrel, I’m thinking that securingsome of the connections are better than gambling on them all.Hopefully it will go this way and I won’t get burned. If I do, I can