[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09

[Bob Jaffe]

Greetings,

This morning in Public Safety we discussed an ordinance to ban the use
of cell phones while driving. Apparently there are studies showing that
talking on the phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving
drunk. Studies also show that hands free phones don't really help. The
problem is not so much the physical ability to manage the wheel while
holding the phone, it is the distraction of having the conversation.  I
was also told that it is different from having a conversation with
someone in the car because the person on the other end of the phone
conversation is not responding to road conditions like a passenger. The
ordinance would also ban the use of cell phones while riding a bike.  

As a frequent user of my cell phone while driving I am hesitant to get
behind this one. But on the other hand I know I have made bonehead
driving moves that would not have happened if I were not distracted by
the phone. So I imagine I will come around. 

I have also determined through firsthand experience that it is much
harder to talk on the phone while biking than driving. I have pretty
much given up that practice.  We already have an ordinance that requires
a cyclist to keep both hands on the handle bars so that one is already
covered.

There was some discussion about problems with having a law that only
applied inside the city limits. But only a few years ago it was legal to
drive with an open container of alcohol outside city limits. And
fireworks are legal outside city limits.  And then there are dogs on
leash. That only applies in the city. So there are a lot of examples of
the city having laws that differ from the rest of the state. We set a
public hearing on the matter.

 

In conservation we looked at a proposal from the Greenhouse Gas Team
promoting the use of local wood products. We had a presentation from
Professor Peter Kolb on the forest management practices in Germany. Once
again the Europeans make us look like Neanderthals. Germany is almost
the exact size of Montana but they have something like 80,000,000
people. They have about the same amount of forest as we do but produce
about 16 times the number of board feet of wood products.  And they do
it all sustainably with an incredibly diversified wood products
industry. It was a fascinating presentation and we ran out of time
before we got to look at the actual resolution request. We will take it
up again in a few weeks.

 

In PAZ we discussed development agreements again. The development
agreement is a contract between the City and a developer that will be
required for annexation.  We first pursued the idea for properties that
were being annexed that were not going to go through subdivision. Such
as a large lot that will be divided into single family detached
condominiums.  A development agreement would be the only opportunity for
the council to review and condition the future development.  A secondary
interest in development agreements is to make the conditions of
subdivision part of the contract for annexation. This is driven by the
desire to make the terms under which we are willing to approve a project
more defensible in court. Since our experiences with Bob Brugh and John
Didel, I now see all developers as potential litigants.  For that matter
I see the neighbors who protest the development as potential litigants
as well as anyone else who has a horse in the race. 

 

A related matter we also took up was modifying our resolution regarding
contract sewer connections. We made a number of modifications including
the requirement for a development agreement for developments outside of
city limits that want access to the sewer. For now on they will be
subject to pretty much all the same conditions as developments inside
the city including park dedication and payment in lieu of impact fees.
We set a public hearing on both items for April 6th.

 

In A&F we approved some union contracts. Labor costs are the lion's
share of our budget but we pretty much just rubber stamp these
agreements. They are the outcome of the negotiations between the
administration and the union. It would actually be a violation of labor
law if we didn't approve them.

 

The main item we discussed in Public Works was the request to make an
exception to our noise ordinance for some MDT resurfacing projects. This
enables them to do the work at night on high volume roads.  The sticking
point was the proposal to redesign South and Reserve. They want to make
it so there are double left turn lanes off of both directions of South.
There were a few problems. One was the fact that a major intersection in
the city of Missoula was being redesigned and we were only hearing about
it because they wanted an exemption from the noise ordinance.  Another
problem was that there was no provision for bicycle infrastructure. It
was incomprehensible to me that such a thing would even be considered.
When City Engineer Kevin Slovarp was asked about the bicycle lanes he
said it never occurred to him. He is really good at giving the wrong
answer in situations like this.

Later I found out the right answer when I spoke with Phil Smith, our
bike and Ped coordinator, to find out why there was not some more
advocacy here. Phil's answer was that we generally don't put bike lanes
in at intersections with turning lanes. The cyclist is expected to just
take the appropriate lane.  

The problem with this intersection is that the road starts spreading out
into the various turning lanes about 585 feet away from the actual
intersection. So you are supposed to take the lane and ride with 35-40
mile an hour traffic for 585 feet. Clearly there is an opportunity here
for some improvement.

 

When the committee refused to grant the exception for the project on
South, John Hendrickson made a comment to the effect that this is why
MDOT screws us on funding. If only we would be more compliant and let
them build their highways through our community like they know best we
would get more money. After the meeting when he was having a good ol'
boy chuckle with the MDT guy about us silly Missoula people I asked him
what was so bad about Missoula having high standards and wanting to have
a say in the design of our transportation system. He told me that in
this case it was impossible to have anything less than 12 foot lanes at
the intersection so this was the only way it could be built.  I'm having
trouble believing that but need to look into the 12 foot lane rule some
more.

 

In Committee of the Whole (COW) we heard from some FEMA people about a
workshop they were doing for Missoula.  They were here gathering
information for a disaster preparedness training they will be doing for
about 50 participants.  The training is in Maryland and the feds are
picking up the tab for the whole thing. We don't have a lot of natural
disaster hazards here so the training will be about earthquakes. My
understanding is that the recent gas explosion in Bozeman was related to
seismic activity so it isn't that off base. In general, the biggest fear
here relates to something going wrong with a train which could of course
be caused by an earthquake.

 

 Thanks for your interest,   

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us <mailto:bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us> 

406-728-1052



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090311/922d917e/attachment.htm>