[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9-16-09

[Bob Jaffe]

Greetings,
We got off to a comfortable start at 9:30 this morning with Public Safety committee. The discussion was about prohibiting the riding of bicycles on the sidewalks downtown.  The city currently has an ordinance that dates back a number of decades that prohibits riding on the sidewalk downtown.  But sometime not as long ago the legislature passed the following rule regarding bikes on sidewalks:


(1)    Section 61-8-608 MCA provides:

a.       "61-8-608. BICYCLES ON SIDEWALKS. (1) A PERSON OPERATING A BICYCLE UPON AND ALONG A SIDEWALK or across a roadway UPON AND ALONG A SIDEWALK SHALL YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY PEDESTRIAN AND SHALL GIVE AUDIBLE SIGNAL BEFORE OVERTAKING AND PASSING ANY PEDESTRIAN.  (2) A person may not ride a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or across a roadway upon or along a crosswalk WHERE THE USE OF THE BICYCLE IS PROHIBITED BY OFFICIAL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. (3) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2), a person operating a vehicle by human power UPON AND ALONG A SIDEWALK OR ACROSS A ROADWAY UPON AND ALONG A CROSSWALK HAS ALL THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES APPLICABLE TO A PEDESTRIAN under the same circumstances. (emphasis added)

And also:


(1)    Subsection 7-1-112(1) MCA of Montana's general local government statutory provisions states:

a.       "7-1-113 CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REGULATION REQUIRED. (1) A local government with self government powers IS PROHIBITED THE EXERCISE OF ANY POWER IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW or administrative regulation IN ANY AREA AFFIRMATIVELY SUBJECTED BY LAW TO STATE REGULATION AND CONTROL." (emphasis added)

So that means that our ordinance is invalid and needs to be repealed or seriously amended. It also means that the only way to prohibit bike riding on the sidewalks would be to put up signage at all entrance points to the sidewalk. Dave reported to us that Bozeman has actually done that in their downtown.

My take on it is that riding on the sidewalk downtown is OK if you do it slow enough.  The rule on campus is that you can ride on the paths if you stay within twice the walking speed. I think that is still too fast for downtown where people can be popping out of doorways. I also think the sidewalks aren't the place for cycle through traffic. The fifty feet between the corner and the bike rack makes sense to coast in at a walking pace. Maybe if you are riding with young children the road is a little too scary but then you really need to move very slow. I think what we already have in the MCA cited above about yielding to pedestrians may be adequate. Maybe we could revise our ordinance to address sidewalk speed limits and still be within the confines of the state law.

Next in PAZ we had a pre-public hearing on the Clark Fork Terrace #1 subdivision.  This is the partner subdivision to the one out in East Missoula that we are being sued over regarding the trail connections both along the river and connecting the Kim Williams trail to the new state park. There are similar disputed issues regarding the trail in this subdivision. We first considered the proposal a year ago and tabled it because we were waiting for the outcome of the law suit on the first project. It matters because the disposition of the trails on the one are directly related to what will need to happen on the other.  We are still waiting for the outcome of the law suit and our one year deadline is coming up to make a decision on the request. So we have to move it to the floor and say yes or no.

Then we took up the zoning rewrite.  Dave had thankfully dropped the idea of revisiting the sign chapter. He had a pile of other minor edits that passed without objection. Jason offered an amendment to the section that establishes density in multifamily zones.  Currently the density ranges from 1000-2500 feet of lot per unit depending on the number of bedrooms.  The number of parking spaces is also based on the number of bedrooms. The new rule attempts to simplify by just setting a base square feet of lot per unit and the parking is calculated off of the square feet of the unit instead of bedrooms.  At the very beginning of the committee review a million years ago, we pegged that base amount at 1500 feet. Jason proposed changing that to 1000 feet. The motion passed. So in a multifamily zone, like the current B, a person can build at one unit per thousand feet of lot size as long as they meet the parking, setback, and other requirements.

Then Jason restated the main motion to repeal title 19 and pass title 20.  We had some discussion about whether it was appropriate to move forward while there was pending litigation. Some thought not, the majority of us thought yes. Jon Wilkins spoke about how he is worried that maybe there is something here that we are doing wrong, or maybe there is something hiding in the new code we don't understand. He also suggested that there is no time sensitivity to this and we may as well wait as long as it takes to get every question answered to everyone's satisfaction. I'm pretty sure there will always be folks out there planting seeds of doubt and universal satisfaction is not attainable.

During the subsequent public comment, Joe Easton pointed out that he had two projects on hold waiting for the new code. He is also the board president for homeWORD and they have a project on hold waiting for the new code. Jon Wilkins responded by warning us all that Joe had a financial interest in all of this so we should discount his testimony.  I'm really baffled by that perspective.  When we were discussing the building height issue we were told we should defer to the architects to tell us what to do. Don't they all have a financial interest in the outcome of that decision?  When we were considering electronic signs we were told to defer to the business owners and sign companies. Don't they all have a financial interest that is motivating their comments?  This would also go for west broadway business owners who don't like the diet and at least half of the people who give us public comment on any given issue.  I also see a contradiction in saying you support good jobs in the construction industry, but don't believe the interests or opinions of a developer should be considered. Without developers there isn't a whole lot of construction. These were all things I would have loved to discuss on the floor but it was off topic and we didn't have time.

In the end we voted to approve the new zoning code and send it to the floor on October 5th. The vote was 7 to 4 with Renee, Lyn, Jon, and John voting against. Dick had left to get to another meeting before we got to the vote.

After lunch we started with Public Works.  We approved a deal to buy back 62.5 sewer loading units at $900 each from T&T development company up in the rattlesnake. Back when the original sewer went in up there, the big land owners put the money up in advance to pay for the system in trade for sewer connection rights to be used in the future. The owners of the loading units have determined that they can't use them on their land but they are transferable and can be sold. It is in the interest of the sewer fund to buy these back and get them off the market all in a batch.

We took care of a few other items and then considered a request to order in boulevard improvements at 401 and 417 Rollins. Back in 1986 there was a project that put in curbs on this block. The public works department put in topsoil and seed in the boulevard. The property was owned by then city council president Al Sampson and he ordered the public works director Steve King to take out the topsoil and put in road base to turn it back into a parking lot in violation of city ordinance.  It's been that way since. Over the years the neighbors have complained on and off about the junk cars and trash being stored in the boulevard where the whole rest of the block and neighborhood have grass, trees, and landscaping.  The motion to require bigger curbs, topsoil, grass, and trees at an estimated cost to the homeowner of $4500 passed unanimously. Clearly, there was a time when the city council had a lot more power than it does now. Steve pointed out that the meetings weren't televised or recorded then either.

We finished up with Budget Committee.  We voted unanimously to set the tax rate for FY10. We are keeping the mill levy at the same rate as last year. So on average people's taxes will remain the same.  We are losing a bunch of money on centrally assessed property, like Qwest and Northwest Energy. But we are bringing in some new money from growth. In the end we are ahead by about $300,000 from what we budgeted. But we still don't have our final numbers in yet and from the looks of things other revenue sources are going to be down by at least that much. So we had some discussion of the merits of levying a bit more to give us some cushion in case the numbers came in even worse. If we don't do it now, we have to wait until next year. We can't change the tax rate mid-year. So if things go to hell we are going to have to squeeze it from our departments. The ballpark number we were looking at for the potential shortage was something like $200,000. This works out to about $6 per household. We opted to stick with the plan and hope for the best.


Thanks for your interest,

Bob Jaffe
Missoula City Council, Ward 3
1225 South 2nd West
Missoula, MT 59801
(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 public records to individuals requesting them. The City is also 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/20090916/c7dfa0f8/attachment.htm>