[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09

[Paradigm1 at aol.com]

Oh no !!! here we go again.... please don't support the cell phone  rule. It 
creates the appearance of a Council more interested in hen-pecking it's  
citizen's with petty behavior rules (insert leash law) than dealing with more  
complicated and important matters facing the  community. Additionally... have you 
looked at a map of the city limits...?  try figuring that out while you are 
driving, talking on a cell phone, ...and  eating a slice of pizza.
 
Carl Posewitz,
 
Ward 3
 
 
In a message dated 3/11/2009 11:12:15 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us writes:

 
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
Messages  and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to 
City  business may be considered public or private records depending on the 
message  content. The City is often required by law to provide city records to  
individuals requesting records, some of which are not public records and have  
limited scope of distribution pursuant to state law. The City is required by  
law to protect private, confidential information. This message is intended for 
 the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended 
 recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately, do not 
 forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
-----Please  delete extra content when replying to messages------

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. 
Subscribe or view archives at  Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by  www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219671244x1201345076/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090312/183476b1/attachment.htm>