[MissoulaGov] Thoughts on Civil Discourse

[Brent Campbell]

Johns Hopkins Civility Project makes peace
person to person, then nation to nation

Piero Massimo Forni sees being considerate to one another as the
foundation for everything from
the environmental movement to women's rights.

By Richard O'Mara | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 11, 2007 edition

Baltimore - Pier Massimo Forni is a peacemaker, not between nations,
rather on the fundamental level of individual personal relations. He's
not a therapist, psychiatrist, or such. He's a master of the
ameliorative skills that are as old as human society and, to him, more
productive of social harmony than most people realize.
We're talking about manners, courtesy, civility.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1211/p20s01-ussc.html
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1211/p20s01-ussc.html> 


The Johns Hopkins Civility Project - http://krieger.jhu.edu/civility
<http://krieger.jhu.edu/civility> 

Paperback edition:  Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of
Considerate Conduct, New York, St. Martin's Griffin, 2003.  $11.95

To live a long, healthy and serene life we need the crucial help of a
network of caring people - we need social support. In order to gain and
keep social support we need social skills. Choosing Civility
re-discovers and expounds the essential skills that allow us to live
well among others.


Brent Campbell, P.E.
President / CEO
WGM Group, Inc.
http://www.wgmgroup.com <http://www.wgmgroup.com> 


-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of
missoulagov-request at cmslists.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:00 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6

Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to
        missoulagov at cmslists.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
        missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Committee Update 3-11-09 (Bob Jaffe)
   2. Re: Committee Update 3-11-09 (Paradigm1 at aol.com)
   3. Re: Committee Update 3-11-09 (David Strohmaier)
   4. Re: Committee Update 3-11-09 (Stacy Rye)
   5. Fwd:  Committee Update 3-11-09 (Ethel MacDonald)
   6. Re: Committee Update 3-11-09 (Paradigm1 at aol.com)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:11:58 -0600
From: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09
To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID:
 
<689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A30C817871 at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>
       
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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/20090311/922d9
17e/attachment.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:00:27 EDT
From: Paradigm1 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09
To: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us, missoulagov at cmslists.com
Message-ID: <c88.4435be35.36ea7d8b at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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%2
6hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090312/18347
6b1/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:31:14 -0600
From: David Strohmaier <dstrohmaier at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09
To: Bob Jaffe <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID: <SNT103-W1F7E6D2E5D9C9758283ACA19F0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"


One bit of clarification . . . we didn't get around to setting a public
hearing on the cell phone ordinance. Actually, a motion was made to set
a public hearing but it was later withdrawn because we ran out of time.
We'll take another run at this in the weeks to come.



Dave

Dave Strohmaier 508 E. Pine Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 327-8911, home
(406) 721-1958, office





Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:11:58 -0600
From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09





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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090312/a8a8f
7ca/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:33:40 -0600 (MDT)
From: "Stacy Rye" <srye at montana.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09
To: Paradigm1 at aol.com
Cc: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us, missoulagov at cmslists.com
Message-ID:
        <1326.150.131.76.58.1236879220.squirrel at www.webmail.montana.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

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%2
6hmpgID

> %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




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:38:08 -0600
From: Ethel MacDonald <ethelmacd at gmail.com>
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Fwd:  Committee Update 3-11-09
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Message-ID:
        <49c658a60903121038t30a9465idf03e040125b1649 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

I meant to send this to the whole list so am re-sending.  Thanks for
your
patience.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ethel MacDonald <ethelmacd at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09
To: Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>


Thank you, Bob, for this enormous public service of reporting things we
wouldn't know otherwise, like the proposed left-turn lane expansion on
South
& Reserve, with no publicity or public or even Council discussion
beforehand.  Since my son has been in Village Health Care for nearly 5
months due to being hit on his bike by a driver making a left turn on
Stevens & Beckwith (was she on her cell phone?), I bike on South through
that intersection nearly every day.  While I have no real problem losing
the
bike lane, signaling left and then riding on the line between the
straight
through and right-turn lane, I was nearly wiped out last week when a
truck
passed me in the straight through lane, then whipped into the right lane
in
front of me.  Occasionally cars have done the same, but when a truck
does
it, it's damn scary because of the length & his lack of ability to see
me
once he crossed the lane line.  He obviously had not guaged my speed
(faster
than he thought) in relation to his.  I braked to be safe.  Less
experienced
bicyclists would be either intimidated into not biking this route or
taking
the pedestrian crossing.
      The real change this intersection needs is pedestrian safety
islands
on both Reserve!  I recently spoke with a resident of the housing just
southwest who told me that several 80-year-old women walk to Rosauers
(and
Shopko?) for groceries.  Crossing 5 WIDE lanes where the speed limit is
45
mph is a challenge!  If I'm not biking and have to cross as a
pedestrian, I
always run to be sure to make it before the light changes.
      Another pedestrian safety issue in this area is the 1/8 mile or so
on
South Avenue west of the intersection, particularly on the South side.
Although there is a bus stop, there is no sidewalk between Village
Health
Care and the Fire Station and particularly in the winter, there is
absolutely no safe place to walk even to that bus stop, much less to the
intersection.
      As for the cell  phone issue, as a bicyclist I take particular
care to
get out of the way as much as possible when I see a driver is on the
phone.
I have learned they often become distracted, unpredictable drivers.
Safe
driving is not a silly issue.
  Thank you again for keeping us informed.  Ethel MacDonald


  On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Bob Jaffe
<BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>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<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/>.

>

>




--
"Rocks in the water do not know the suffering of rocks in the sun."
Haitian proverb, www.GrassrootsOnline.org
<http://www.grassrootsonline.org/>




--
"Rocks in the water do not know the suffering of rocks in the sun."
Haitian proverb, www.GrassrootsOnline.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090312/bbed3
fd3/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:42:26 EDT
From: Paradigm1 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 3-11-09
To: srye at montana.com
Cc: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us, missoulagov at cmslists.com
Message-ID: <cc1.4fa48436.36eaa382 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Stacy.. believe me I appreciate the work and complexity of all you  do.
Just
saying that these behavior rules can seem petty at times  --  I'm sure
I'll
get roasted on this one......


Carl P.


In a message dated 3/12/2009 11:34:10 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, 
srye at montana.com writes:

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%2
6hmpgID

>  %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



**************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%2
6hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090312/a0a9a
2d6/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
-------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.

End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 6
******************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090315/0165e9c8/attachment.htm>