[MissoulaGov] Fwd: Committee Update 3-11-09

[Lynn Ascher]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lynn Ascher <lascher01 at bresnan.net>
Date: March 12, 2009 12:09:21 PM MDT
To: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09

I'm in favor of banning drivers (and bikers, if necessary) from using  
cell phones while driving.  If you look at a driver's face while he's  
on his cell, it's obvious that his attention is not on the traffic  
around him but on the conversation he's having.  If a driver needs to  
use his phone, then he can pull over, park for a minute and make or  
take the call. This is very much about traffic safety and accident  
prevention, and not about devising petty rules to harass citizens.
--  Lynn Ascher


On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:11 PM, Bob Jaffe wrote:

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

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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090312/68ae709a/attachment.htm>