[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09

[Stacy Rye]

Hi Carl,
Of course we have time to take up other issues that you might not find
important.  I'm guessing that with over 10,000 constituents there might be
some disagreement with your assessment of what's important and what's not.
 You can imagine being in that position.  Further, I resent the
implication that we're engaged in "petty behavior rules" and not "dealing
with more important matters" and oh, while we're at it, the city limits
are all over the map!  Oh noes!!  The Council takes up all kinds of issues
besides the ones you might be professionally interested in.

On any given Wednesday (like yesterday from 8-4) we sat all six committees
and discussed 14 agenda items.  It would be interesting to have all twelve
of us rank the 14 items by importance.
SR


> 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)

> _______________________________________________

> -----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.



Stacy Rye
(406) 543-9784