The City Council will consider amendments to its traffic control device ordinance Tuesday that will allow the council to continue to spend taxpayers’ dollars on items that official studies and analyses prove are unwarranted and unnecessary.
With the last year, the council has approved the installation of unwarranted and unnecessary stop signs in three different subdivisions at the request of individual council members. In an attempt to prevent political pressure being applied to council members, an ordinance has been devised to establish a process to follow for traffic control device requests from a citizen or group of citizens. According to the ordinance, the prescribed process is:
"An individual or group desiring a traffic control device … may file a report with Director of Public Works to request the traffic analysis for the installation of the traffic control device. The individual or group shall pay a deposit fee upfront to complete a Signal Warrant Analysis as established in the City’s Fee Ordinance. After the City conducts the necessary review, a determination will be made if a traffic control device is warranted (authorized) or unwarranted (unauthorized). If such a device is warranted, the deposit will be refunded by the City. If signage is unwarranted, the fee will not be reimbursed, but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device."
It’s that last phase, "but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device," that’s bothersome. What it says is that council members may still bend to political pressure and spend taxpayers’ money on an item deemed unnecessary simply to satisfy the whims of a few isolated citizens and protect the council member’s political turf. The deposit that’s required doesn’t pay for the installation and maintenance of the device, only a portion of the cost for conducting the Signal Warrant Analysis.
On the other hand, one can argue that the ordinance, as written, gives council members the opportunity to display real leadership, demonstrate some backbone, to prove that they can withstand the political pressure that says the needs of the many must be sacrificed in favor of the whims of the politically connected few.
However, recent council approvals of unnecessary stops signs prove I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
In my mind, the way to make the ordinance work for the benefit of all citizens is simply to strike that last phrase, "but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device."
One good addition to the ordinance is the requirement that the report that must be filed with the Director of Public Works requesting the analysis "shall contain signatures of support of at least 2/3 of the residential or commercial inhabitants located within a distance not less than 1000 feet along all roadways in all directions to and from the desired signage." I would have preferred it read "3/4 of the residential or commercial inhabitants," but 2/3 is an acceptable compromise if the council also agrees to strike that "but the City Council may still vote to install the traffic control device" phrase.
The ordinance does not specify a dollar amount for the deposit, preferring to wait for that decision until the council agrees on the overall fee schedule that will be a part of the FY 2016-17 city budget. The same is true for the fees connected to another ordinance to be voted on Tuesday, one governing the regulation and operation of alarm systems, specifically those systems that, when triggered, notify the police.
This alarm ordinance will require that all such alarm systems be registered and then have that registration renewed on an annual basis. It also prescribes penalties for an excessive number of false alarms. I have heard from some council members that they might push for a one-time registration, with a corresponding higher registration fee, in place of the annual system.
No public hearing is scheduled in connection with either the traffic signal or the alarm ordinance which means any citizen wishing to voice an opinion on either must do so during the Citizens Comments period at the beginning of the 7 p.m. meeting. A tip: If you do wish to speak, it’s better to complete a Citizen’s Comment form that’s available on the table that also contains copies of the agenda on your left as you enter the doors of the council chambers. Simply hand that form to the city secretary who usually can be found sitting at a table perpendicular to the council dais on the far side of the chambers from the entrance.
A public hearing is attached to another proposed ordinance, however, one designed "to prevent light trespass, reduce light pollution (also known as ‘sky glow’), reduce excessive glare, promote energy conservation, and improve safety and security," even though some public safety advocates argue darker streets and alleyways encourage criminal activity and thus don’t "improve safety and security."
But, as I’ve said before, it all comes down to council priorities.
The complete agenda packet for Tuesday’s city council meeting can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment