The URL can be used to link to this page

88-2026 . , � ,��✓ WHITE - CITV CLERK t /� � / PINK - FINANCE COUIIClI �lL- `�, �/_ CANARY -DEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PALTL �� A BLUE -MAVOR . Flle NO. O" !� • /� r ind CP. Ordinan�N 0. j �. Presented By "� � l � � Referre To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date An ordinance amending Section 41 .03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the disconnection of stormwater and clearwater connections from sanitary or combined sewers. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 . That Section 41 . 03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as to add the following new clause (c) thereto: (c) If an e�ension of time is not granted by the director, the property owner may appeal that decision to the board of appeals and review, which appeal shall be governed by the procedures set forth in 5ection 18 .02. The board of appeals and review shall consider the application and the determination of the director, and shall. issue a written decision to the city council within the time period specified in Section 18.02. Persons aggrieved by the final decision of the city council may seek review by the appropriate court. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and publication. � COUNCIL MEMBERS � Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond �ng In Favor c�sW�� Rettman Scheibe� � Against BY Sonnen �- Wilson / Lr�� " 1 � � Form Approv by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary t! � BY ; By Approved by Mayor: Date Approve�d b Mayor for Submission to Council By By . . � �� '�'`� .`:F��'o�� .�,•,,, � ,; , ` ' f;- �; � CITY OF SAINT PAUL :~��'sE in i I �� " OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 3�� 1L�' e ( � j i %,, I/� EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY h�,. �...� �'' � � 647 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-5121 MAYOR December 2 , 1988 Councilmember Janice Rettman 718 City Hall Saint Paul , MN 55102 Dear Councilmember Rettman: I have redrafted the proposed amendment to Section 41 . 03 of the Legislative Code, by deleting the reference in the last line of the original draft, regarding appeals to a court "in accordance with Section 18 .03 of the Code" . Section 18 .03 states that appeals from final decisions of the Board of Appeals and Review are to be to the appropriate court of law. In the case of rain- leader extensions, all decisions of the Board are to be referred to the City Council , and the Council will make the final decision of whether or not to approve the extension. Therefore , appeals will be taken to the courts from the decisions of the City Council not from the decisions of the Board of Appeals and Review. Deleting the reference to Section 18 . 03 should clarify that propo- sition. Please advise me if you have any questions. Ver truly yours , JE . S A R s ant C ty Attorney JJS� �'r (RETURN TO JEROME SEGAL AFTER� ADOPTION) WMITE - CITV CLERK PINK - FINANCE COUIIClI � /,� BIVERr-MAVORTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL File NO. �;��D�X/ Ordin�nce Ordinance N�. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date An ordinance amending Section 41 .03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the disconnection of stormwater and clearwater connections from sanitary or combined sewers. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 . That Section 41 .03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as to add the following new clause (c) thereto: (c) If an e xtension of time is not granted by the director, the property owner may appeal that decision to the board of appeals and review, which appeal shall be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 18 .02. The board of appeals and review shall consider the application and the determination of the director, and shall issue a written decision to the city council within the time period specified in Section 18.02. Persons aggrieved by the final decision of the city . council may seek review by the appropriate court. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and publication. � COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond �"g In Favor Goswicz Rettman Scheibei Against BY Sonnen Wilson Adopted by Council: Date Form Approv by City Attorney Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY , By Approved by Mayor: Date Approved b Mayor for Submission to Council Bv Bv ist /,2- 0?�-�� ►a l -�' �9 � 3rd ��' �9 Adopted /- /� 'd" 9 Yeas Nays bIMOND '(�-�a�a.� GOSWITZ � �� a� �� WILSON MR. PRFSIDENT� SCHEIBEL WHITE - CITV CLERK � PINK � FINANCE GITY O�' SAINT PAUL Council � , � O� / � CANARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE -MAVOR File NO. �� 1 Ordin IZCP. Ordinance NO. ,�.,.i�� %, Presented By _ Ref ced To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date An ordinanc� amending section 41 .03 of the Saint Paul L�gislative Code pertaining �co ��he disconnectiorit., of stormwater and clearwater connections frpm sanitary or combined sewers. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY Ok' SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: '. Section 1 . That section 41 . 03 of', the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as �o ';add the following new clause (c) thereto: (c) If an extension of tim� is not granted by the director, the property owner may appe��l that decision to the board of appeals and review, whi�h appeal shall be governed by the procedures set forth i section 18 .02. The board of appeals and review shall c�nsider the application and the determination of the director� ana shall issue a written decision to the city council withi the time period specified in section 18 . 02 . Persons aggrie d by the final decision of the city council may seek re iew by the appropriate court as provided in section 18 . 03. � Section 2. �' �e This ordinance shall take effect and � e in force thirty days from and after its passage , approval and blication. ,� � ;� �� COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: �'1 Dimond �� In Favor c��c� Rettman s�ne;nei Against By Sonnen , Wilson Form Approved by City ttor y Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY � � g � � � Y ` Approved by Mayor: Date ApprP d by Mayor for S mis io�to Council By ---- -------------{-�-��--T-o--��tv�--s�,�—,��€�--��o��o�t}-- -- -___------ �� a2 � ._ WHITE - CITV'CLERK • � PfNK � FINANCE COl1IIC1I CANARV -OEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PALTL File NO. BI.UE -MAVOR � Ordindnce Ordinance N 0. Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date . An ordinance amending section 41 .03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the disconnection of stormwater and clearwater connections from sanitary or combined sewers. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 . That section 41 .03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as to add the following new clause (c) thereto: - - (c) If an extension of time is not granted by the director, the property owner may appeal that decision to the board of app ' - �^� review, which appeal shall be governed by the �� --^tion 18.02. The board of app �!�'� � 3er the application and the deJ �M �� nd shall issue a written decisic �SS�'� :,he time period specified in sec :d by the final decision of th� view by the appropriate court - �� This �� and be in force thirty days from � 1 and publication. COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Dimond �� In Favor Goswitz Rettman Sc6eibel A gai n s t BY Sonnen Wilson Adopted by Council: Date Form Approved by City Attorney Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By , Approved by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY BY � ��r a Ga � �� . , . . � E1�..�t�L�T � � � � f�-1.-� �i-r-a No.0��7��3; ` �� ,��, �� — �a�� _�«� � z�-�, +�,�►� �'°�°�'°A _ _ - er�: : : — : — . CIT7 ATi'OW/EY' � . . /YT-�NL�A�E� v/4-7L�'kN� ; �T�f�iCCF�u� C~ �T+oM6:(�e W«r�eka cR)) nEae��arr: . PUIMMNO OO�MiA18310N CML$EHVICE COMMIS6ION DATE MI - DATE OUT - ANALYS'i . � � . MK7MF N6. � .. . . � � . . . �. . . . - - � . . . . . .. { . . . �0lMi10 CAA�MSSIfM1 � 1�626 SCFIOOL BOARD . . . � . � ;. . .. 8TAFF . . ClNRTER COMMISSION � COMPIETE A8 IB _ -AOOi MFO.ADDED* _W�R A Di M�FO� . _�• � � . D18TRNTCOIMICIL� �� . . � i EXPLANATION: . , - - � 8l!/OIIfB WNICM COUNCL 09�eC1111E9 . � � � . _ .. . . . . � . . . . . . . .. . . . .. _- .� . - . - . -. � � � VVLin�-�� .. ,_ vi'ii ��i�l_ilj. . � _ . . , � . . . ,. . . U�-� o N IvVV wra��o Moner;�,a�o�rte�rr�wno.wr�s.w►�,.wnsre.wnr>: � ; �� -� Y �9 7t'a�Zn� Fs� ��v.z��J ` �oa�,�a.n.o..�t�..ursr ��,c��,R� �voT c��RZ � `PccB��., �oA7zD o� = ' y��'E��L S, �� M�N��'�+�7�'a�, �D u N C��- �a�.wnsr...d ro wnona: , . s�-� ^�� C C� u �� , ��.,4� �.s . ��.�N� � -�,,,� -� �-d� �L��iuG� �/�'��C��l,��'��' K,�,,,�: ��iv � cr��D �� ,..�p,►,.��: , ��I�� Y� �'-ff� .-�'N��u`T o� `�-ff� C1'o�c.vc.�-L � ��v� �� ,.,� . ��s: —.-r ° --� + L'�t7� Jrl9r,'�'u fi - MSTORY OF BPOf�N9 ,_ ALSa _ � � � , , � •. . _ _ � ,, STIIKEIIOLDERS(Listl P�moN(+,-,O) � i-wa.i.lESnFV�(vna) Rn71ot�ALE.(s�xai�r�ze)�ea�i�) __ FINANCIAL IMPACT Ansr re�n�s�an oeta> s�cro�m�r�►n rio�s t�w►rn�o eu�a�r: :� REYEMUES GENERATED ............................................................... EXPENSEB: � Salarfes/Frk�ge Benefits....................................................:... � ��:.......................................................:..................... �+pP��........................................._..................................... � CoMraas for 3ervice............................................................. . Other . .. artoFrr I�oss>.............................................................. .. ..... . _ .. FUNDII�SOURCE FOR ANY LOSS(Name and AmouM) , . . C/kPITAL INPROVEMENT BUDGET: , � DESION COSTS................................................................................ -� ; A((�ttH61?10M COSTS...............:.........................._.:........................ . CONSiTiUCTION COS'fS ................................................................ ; , TOTAL .................................................................................................... . � SOURCE OF WNDING(Name and Amax�t) IIAgACT ON BUDGET: � � _AMOUNT CURR2NTLY 8llDLiETED.................................. .......: . _ � AMOUNT IN EXGESS OF CURRENT BUDGET . SOURCE OF AMOUNT OVER BUDGET........................................ : PROPERTY TAXES �iENERA'i'ED 11AS7'1 ......... . I�I.EMENTATION RESPONS18iLlTY: . DEPT/OFFICE �� DIVISION � � FUNO TITIE � . . . BUDCiET ACTIVITY NUMBER&TTLE. � .. . ACTIVITY MANAGER �.' . . - � . . � i ,, . . . - . . .. . ., . � . FIQYr PERFORMANCE 1MLL BE I�AStlREDT. PROGRAN 08JECTINEB: PflOGRAM INDICATORS 1ST YR. � 2ND YR. -. EVI�LUATION RESPOI�IBNJTY: PERSON DEPi. PFIONH NO. REPORT 7l�COUNCIL OF �TE FiRST Qt/ARTERLY ... . . _ _ BY . _ ��-- � �� • ___+,��T�"'a:.,,,, CITY OF SAINT PAUL _" ^'• =`� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS �� r :; =� �IIII/�IIIII •> `� "'�""' �; DONALD E. NYGAARD, DIRECTOR , , „�. , ' bUU C itY Nall nnnrx, Saint Paul, Minneso[a 55102 ,,,., 612-�98-�241 GEORGE L^TIMER MAYOR RAINLEADER DISCONNECTION ORDINANCE VARIANCE POLICY• A variance may be granted by the Director of Public Works if enforcement of the mandatory rainleader disconnect ordinance would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property. If disconnecting a rainleader will cause one or more of the following conditions to exist, and there is no prudent alternative at this time, a variance may be granted. * If disconnection will cause damage due to drainage to the property or adjacent property * If the only alternative is to drain directly onto public rights of ways. * If a handicapped person's mobility would be adversely affected * If the volume of rainwater discharged is excessive and requires a connection to a storm sewer and storm sewer service is not available to the property at this time. If a variance is granted, it will be valid for a initial period of one year and may be renewed. A condition of the variance will be that if the reason the variance was granted will be solved by the future construction of a storm sewer, building alterations or other corrective action, the variance will expire on the date the corrective action is completed. An annual charge will be bilYed to those properties receiving variances; this charge will be based on the estimated amount of rainwater discharged to cover the cost of treating this water at the MWCC treatment plant. VARIANCE PROCESS: 1. Property owner requests variance from the Rainleader Disconnect Ordinance. 2 . A Variance Request Form is sent to the property owner. 3. The completed Form is sent back to the Rainleader Disconnect Program Office. 4 . The owner is placed on a waiting list for appointment and inspection to evaluate the situation. 5. Inspector's report on his evaluation of the situation will be reviewed, discussed and a decision made by the Program Supervisor. 6. If the variance is granted, a letter will be sent to the property owner stating that a variance is approved and also stating what the annual charge will be for 1988. 7. If the recommendation is for denial, the file will be sent to the Sewer Division Management staff for review. If that review concludes that a variance is justified, a letter will be sent as in item #6. 8. If the conclusion remains that the variance be denied, the owner will be notified of this denial by letter. The letter will further state that the owner can appeal this decision to the Board of Appeals by writing to the Board at Room 705A, City Hall or by calling Josephine Palermo at 298-4163 . 9. Property owner re-submits the variance request to the Board of Appeals with a filing fee of $10.00. 10. Property owner will be placed on the agenda for the next available meeting and hearing. . . . . ��o�� _ , ENFORCEMENT AND APPEAL § 18.02 Chapter 18. Board of Appeals and Review and any member of the board shall have author- ity to administer oaths. Sec. 18.01. Membership,rules,compensation, (e) Record of proceedircgs. The proceedings of etc. all board meetings shall be summarized, reduced (a) Com osition o boar to writing and maintained as a matter of record. p f d, qualifications, term. There is hereby created a board of appeals which (fl Compensation. Each member of the board of shall consist of seven (7) voting members who appeals,including the chairman,shall be paid for shall be appointed by the mayor and approved by attending meetings of the board the sum of twenty- the city council.The mayor shall designate one of five dollars($25.00)per meeting,the aggregate of the seven(7) members as chairman. Each of said such payments to any one member for any one seven (7) members shall be a qualified elector of year not to exceed the sum of six hundred dollars the city and shall neither be an officer nor em- ($600.00). ployee of the City o£Saint Paul. One representa- tive shall be appointed from the architectural or �� Staff. The staff for the board of appeals shall engineering profession, one representative shall be provided through the department of commu- be a ointed from the financial nity services. pp profession, one �Code 1856, §§ 55.01, 55.02; Ord. No. 17565, § 1, representati��e shall be appointed from the build- 5-24-88) ing and trade industry, one representative shall be appointed from the legal profession, one repre- sentative shall be appointed from the real estate Sec. 18.02. Hearing;powers of board. or building management profession and two (2) �a) Hearing, petition, filing fee, notice. With the � representatives shall be appointed from the gen- following exceptions, any person affected by any eral citizenry. Members of the board shall serve order, notice of which has been issued in connec- terms of three (3) years, except that the original tion with the enforcement of any provision of the board shall have three(3)members appointed for housing, building or fire codes, or any rule or a term of three(3,years,two members for two(2) regulation adapted pursuant thereto, may request years and two (2) members for one year. Vacan- and shall be granted a hearing before the board of cies in an unexpired term shall be filled by the appeals on all matters set forth in such notice; mayor by appointment with the approval of the provided,that such person shall first file with the city council for the remainder of the term. board of appeals a written petition requesting (b) Ex officio members. The chief health officer, such hearing and setting forth a brief statement the city architect and the chief of fire prevention of the grounds therefor within thirty (30) calen- or their authorized representatives shall be ex dar days after the original notice of code viola- officio members of the board but shall not have tions was served. voting rights. EXCEPTIONS: (c) Quorum. The board shall not act without a �1) In the case of condemnation as un�t for quorum. Four (4) members of the board, being human habitation, pursuant to Section present,shall constitute a quorum.The board shall 34.19(B), the written petition as described act by a majority vote, except when there are above shall be made and �led within ten fewer than seven(7)members but four(4)or more (10) calendar days from the date the plac- members of the board present, then a majority of ard was posted as required by Section those members present shall act as the board. 34.19(C); (d) Rules, regulations, powers. The board shall (2) In the case of emergency vacation of dwell- have the power to adopt rules and regulations for ing or rooming unit or units pursuant to the conducting of its hearings,to issue subpoenas �ction 34.18(e) or condemnation of danger- � and subpoenas duces tecum to witnesses when ous structures pursuant to Section 34.19(A), reasonably necessary to obtain pertinent evidence, Supp.No.4 219 . . � . . �-�'''�a�� § 18.02 LEGISLATIVE CODE C appeals shall be made as provided for in in harmony with the general purpose of this chap- those sections; or ter to secure the public health,safety and welfare. (3) In the case of the abatement of nuisances �Code 1956, § 55.02; Ord. 16897,3-18-82;Ord. No. 17346, § 1, 4-24-86) pursuant to Chapter 45, appeals shall be made as provided for in Sections 45.04 and �c. 18.03. Judicial review. 45.07. Any person aggrieved by the f"inal decision of The filing fee for such a petition shall be ten the board of appeals may obtain judicial review dollars ($10.00) except that where there is finan- by timely filing of an action seeking review of cial hardship and after recommendation of the such decision as provided by law in district court. enforcin; off'icer, the appeals board may waive (Code 1956, § 55.03) the filing fee subject to the approval of the city council. The filing fee may be refunded by the �c. 18.04. Code review. city council after the appeals board has made such a recommendation under any of the follow- The board shall also act as a review body for ing situation: (i)there is a financial hardship; (ii) the housing building and fire prevention codes it is found and determined that the appeals board and recommend to the mayor and city council any lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter; (iii) if the changes needed to maintain modern and enf'orce- petitioner requests to withdraw the petition for able codes. appeal after the petition is filed out before the (Code 1956, § 55.04) appeals board commences the hearing on the mat- ter;or(iv)where it is found and determined that Chapter 19. Power of Inspectors to it would be in the best interests of the City of Enforce Provisions of Code , Saint Paul to grant such a refund.Upon receipt of � such petition, the board of appeals shall set a Sec. 18.01. Power of inspectors to issue sum- time and place for such hearing and shall give monses. the petitioner written notice thereof.At such hear- All duly appointed,quali�ed and acting inspec- ing the petitioner shall be given opportunity to be tors of the departments of the City of Saint Paul heard and to show why such notice should be_ shall have the same power as possessed by police modified or withdrawn. The hearing shall be com- officers of the cit3�to issue summonses in the same menced not later than thirty (30) days after the manner and with the same force and effect as day on which the petition was filed; provided, summonses issued by police ot�`icers, but such sum- that upon application of the petitioner the board monses shali relate only to violations of the Saint of appeals may postpone the date of hearing for a paul Legislative Code relating only to violations reasonable time beyond such thirty-day period if of the Saint Paul Legislative Code relating to in its judgment the petitioner has submitted a building construction, operation and maintenance; good and sufficient reasor: �'or such postponement. �`ire and fire prevention;public health and sanita- (b) Powers of boarc� council approvaL The board tion; and zoning, and the provisions of the Min- of appeals may, with the approval of the council, nesota Code of Agency Rules enforced by the di- modify or revoke the order, anz3 may grant an vision of public health. Said summonses shall be extension of time for the performance of any act such form as approved by the Ramsey County required where the board finds that there is prac- Municipal Court. tical diff`iculty or undue hardship connected with (Code 1956, § 75A.01) the performance of any act required by the provi- sions of the housing, building or fire prevention Chapters 20, 21. Reserved codes, or any applicable rules or regulations is- sued pursuant thereto, and that such extension is \ Supp.No.4 [1'he next page is 271J 220 . . . , � �_ a�� _ ��_�_ Roger "J. Goswitz, Chair PUBLIC WORKS COMM�T'- November 3� ` \ n� - PRESENT: ��, �v" ��1 �'1,1 � w/'� �V I e in meeting) OTHERS PRE, 2 � �� , John Saumweber Paul St. ` ' M� Kevin Neison. Gregory Haupt, Pe , Don Sobania, Brian Bonner, Ton, e �, Mike Kasson, Roy Bredahl . 1 1 . The minut V � as submitted. 2. VACATION: . ,,r the vacation of part of Pearl , Charles ar _,�aed by Eustis, University, Berry and Pearl Stre _. pose of developing Westgate Office Industriai Park. � Peter White, Valuations Division, said this vacation involves the Midway area where the U.S. Steel Building was torn down. The Port Authority requested vacation of the streets in order to replat this area for the Westgate Development whicl� is a fairly standard procedure for new development. Councilmember Rettman asked several questions about the financing and Mr. White explained the Port Authority is being charged $500 for administrative fees and if they shouid resell the land they would be charged the value of the land at that time. No one appeared. MOTION: by Councilmember Rettman to recommend approval was carried on a 3-0 vote. Goswitz, Rettman, Scheibel . 3. FINAL ORDER: Update on construction of the IRVINE AVENUE AREA STREET PAVING ANO LIGHTING PROJECT. AND 4. FINAL ORDER: Update on construction of the IRVINE AVENUE STORM SEWER PROJECT. AND 5. FINAL ORDER: Constructing sanitary, storm and water service connections, if requested by the property owner. for the IRVINE AVENUE STORM SEWER AND STREET PAVING AND LIGHTING PROJECT. Chris Nicosia, Public Works Department, explained at a previous meeting this matter was laid over. Public Works staff was asked to go back to the drawing board and meet with these people to see if their requests/concerns could be resolved and then report back to the , Committee in two months with an update. The meetings have been going very well , Mr. Nicosia continued, one meeting was held i� October and what was accomplished that night was trust between our department and the residents. A series of additionai meetings was requested. This . past month a meeting was heid with the neighbors and NSP concerning the , _ � burying of the utilities and a good discussion was had. Another meeting is planned with the residents in January regarding the retaining watl . As a result of these meetings, the residents have a clear and better understanding of what is involved in putting together this package and � know we will assist them in trying to get the amenities they want. They are realizing the things they would like to see happen are difficult because of the cost and may or may not happen. They are going to go through the CIB process for funding some of these items. We are willing to make some compromise perhaps on the wall , but things are going real well and hopefully we will be ready in the spring to bring this back to the committee, he added. Councilmember Scheibel commented he was happy to see they are optimistic in resolving this matter and that discussions have been positive. Councilmember Rettman expressed the same comments and asked when everything is worked out if new Finsl Orclers wauld be submltted. Mr. Nicosia stated there would be new orders issued. No one appeared. The Chair stated this is just an update discussion and no action is necessary at this time and asked that Public Works Department notify him when they are ready to present another update. 6. FINAL ORDER: Improving the foilowing streets with a bituminous paving, concrete curb and gutter, conerete outwalks and driveway aprons, boulevard restoration and a street lighting system: Parts of Case Avenue, Flandrau St. , Sims Avenue. Ames Place, Ames Avenue and Mechanic Avenue. To be known as the FLANDRAU/CASE AREA STREET PAVING AND LIGHTING PROJECT. AND 7. FINAL ORDER: Constructing the FLANDRAU/CASE AREA STORM SEWER PROJECT. ibounded by Van Dyke St. on the east, York Avenue on the south, Hazelwood St. on the west. and Jessamine Avenue extended on the north) . AND FINAL ORDER: Constructing sanitary, storm and water service connections, if requested by the propertyu owner, for the FLANDRAU/CASE AREA STORM SEWER AND STREET PAVING AND LIGHTING PROJECT. Chris Nicosia. Public Works Department, reported that Tom Kuhfeld was at the neighborhood meeting and things went very well and there were not a great deal of questions raised. This is the area around Ames School and Sackett Playgrounds. In answer to Ms. Rettman's question. Mr. Nicosia said there was no real concern raised about the 34 ft. width of the street with parking on one side. No one appeared. MOT10N: by Councilmember Rettman to recommend approval of ltems #6, 7, and 8 was passed on 3-0 vote, Rettman, Scheibel , Goswitz. 9. RESOLUTION: Increase the Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) rate by $25.00. From $550.00 to $575.00, effective January 1 , 1989, by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The Chair expiained a SAC charge is a charge paid by the builder or property owner for a new sewer connection. Metro Waste Control Commission decides what the increase is going to be and passes it on to the cit,y. Councilmember Rettman noted the copy of the Resolution she had . . . . ��-�� was not signed by the proper people. The Chair stated he wouid check to make sure it was signed when it came to the Council . No one appeared. MOTION: by Councilmember Rettman to recortxnend approval was passed on a 3-0 vote, Rettman, Scheibel , Goswitz. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER D-9954: Approving "Temporary Permit to Construct" allowinq the State to contract for the Lake Street Bridqe plan. Peter White, Valuations Division, expiained the Highway Department is in the process of condemning some city owned property and in order for them to open bids and award the contract they need to have the right to go on that property for the bridge construction. Condemnation will be heard in January. They need to have this permit which basically allows them to go on the property for construction of the bridge prior to getting tt�e right to fee title of the property. However, they will have fee title before they actually go on to the property. Councilmember Rettman commented since this is an administrative order no action is necessary, however, she is concerned which fund this $40,000 goes into and would like the record to show that prior to any acceptance of the money it come back in front of this committee, the Finance Committee. or some committee. It was stated the Parks Department wants to do some work out on Mississippi River Boulevard. The Chair said he would check out the procedure on how it is accepted and how it is going to be done. No action was required on this item. 11 . DISCUSSION: Green Lantern Street Lighting Issue. Chris Nicosia, Department of Public Works, explained a request is before the Planning Commission to do a study on the street lighting issue and rather than having two separate bodies doing the same thing it might be well to lay this matter over until the Planning Commission study is completed. Councilmember Rettman said she was willing to lay it over and Councilmember Scheibel suggested that all the councilmembers should be present when this matter is discussed. It was agreed to bring this matter up at a future meeting after the Pianning Corranission study is completed. 12. DISCUSSION: Rainleader Disconnect [ssue. Councilmember Rettman said she has some concerns about the variance process for rainleaders and Counciimember Scheibel commented other council members have also expressed concerns. Ms. Rettman pointed out the Board of Appeals is deeply concerned because they have not been given proper direction in terms of the variance procedures. She passed out copies of a letter written in 1987 by Councilmember Drew and a letter dated April . 1988 to tt�e property owners which she said both indicate variance procedures do exist. She then passed out the Variance Policy adopted by the Administration and Public Works and noted Item 6 indicates if the variance is granted, a letter will be sent to the � property owner and in Items 8 8 9 if variance is denied, the owner will be notified bv letter and that letter will state that the owner can appeal this �ecision to the Board of Appeals in writing. Ms. Rettman then referred to Chapter 18 of the Legislative Code, page 220, and said it clearly states that alt items heard by the Board of Appeals must be adopted by the Council . She said she agreed with Mr. Glassman, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, that they should rehear these variances all over again. He and the Board of Appeais were told they could not grant variances. That is not the intent of the sewer separation program, she said, and is clearly not the intention of the variance program because everyone has a right to appeat and an appeal process. It was clearly the intent of the Council to have an appeals process, she added. Ron Glassman, Chair, Bo�rd of A�peals, then spoke and said when this issue was first brought to the Board of Appeals a gentleman from the city explained he wanted us to rule on these cases but said we should never grant appeals because they were going to be checked by the Federal and State governments. We really don't want to handle these cases but were told we had to. Some of these people have real terrible problems and we have had to deny appeals on almost every case because we were directed not to grant any variances. he added. Jerry Segal , City Attorney's Office, stated the letter he wrote to Councilmember Goswitz was quite correct and quite clear that the ordinance does not provide for any appeai procedure from the decision of the Director of Public Works. The Public Works Director can request a recommendation and advice of the Board of Appeals but the Director still makes the final decision and that is consistent with the ordinance, he said. There is no process in the ordinance itself to have appeals other than to the City Council or District Court. The ordinance that establishes the Board of Appeals establishes their area of authority and does not include appeals from decision of Public Works director. If the director asks for advice from the Board he said he did not see that as a conflict. Councilman Scheibel commented a long time was spent discussing this matter and one of the things everyone wanted was to make sure there was at least some kind of hearing process available. There are some extreme cases and nothing is perfect. particularly in this city with the older homes and, he said, we do have to have some leeway. Jerry Segal stated if you want to change the procedure. you will have to amend the ordinance and clarify that. Ms. Rettman said she agreed that it has always been a concern of the council that there be an appeal process. Discussion followed on how the amendment should be drafted and Mr. Segal agreed to prepare a draft for the Committee. Mr. Glassman asked if they should hold up hearing these appeals. He also said they have requested someone from the city attorney's office to be present at their meetings to advise them on matters such as this. , . - - . . . ��- a o� � � � Roy Bredahl , Sewer Engineer, said he supports the Board of Appeals and the only problem was the misinformation originally received by the Chairman of the Board of Appeals. We feel they shouid make an objective, good review on each case and make a judgment at that hearing. We have been supporting their recommendations and are open for whatever amendments to the ordinance the Council wants to make, he said. Mike Kasson, Sewer Division. said he would still recommend having the variance granted for one year and then reviewed and not granted on a permanent basis. Councilmember Scheibel remarked that in some cases it has to be a permanent variance. Mr. Kasson repiied that if too many variances are granted in one area we may have to rebuild the sanitary sewers or we will have flooding of the sewers. Also when the sewer is separated it may change some things. Mr. Scheibel is correct, he said, in that some of those may never be able to be disconnected. Further discussion followed and Mr. Glassman was instructed to postpone hearing these appeals until the amendments are ready. No action was necessary on this item. Councilmember Dimond arrived at this point in the meeting. 13 DISCUSSION: Continental Cablevision - (approximately ten minutes) . Greg Haupt, Director of City-wide Information Services, said as you know Continental Cable has sent a letter to the Council and the Mayor requesting a reduction in their franchise fee. The purpose of the discussion this morning is to review the existing ordinance because it does not provide a process to deal with this kind of renegotiation. Tom Weyandt, City Attorney's Office, has prepared a proposed procedure, he continued, which he will go through with you. Tom Weyandt then explained he has used the PUC statutes and rules as a modei and tried to take from there the things that seem to apply, at least to the Continental case. He then went through the 12 steps of the proposal : 1 ) a timeline is needed - the City has 120 days from date of the request to make its final decision; 2) require a response, any person making a request for change or modification must prefile evidence upon which they base their change. Part of the problem now is that staff don't know what is going to be claimed to support the change so are not able to prepare an analysis of the facts or conclusions; 3) any party that wants to become involved must file a Notice of Intent to Participate with the City Clerk within a certain period of time. This does not prevent anyone from providing testimony at the public hearing but makes anyone who files present all the documents and pertinent . information. One of the problems we have now is that we don't know who tF�e piayers are; 4) interviewer file and evidence; 5) provides that people have right to speak at public hearing but must prefile any documents 3 days before public hearing; 6) establish burden of proof for person seeking the change; 7) any decision made has to be done by ordinance; 8) facts and opinons have to be done under affirmation; 9) keep the flow of evidence fairly simple; 10) all data is public record; 11 ) regulatory staff - someone from council research, finance and city attorney's office this would give some formality to the process; 12) any statute, ordinance or franchise contrary to this procedure shall � ,� � supercede applicable portions of the procedure. Councilmember Rettman said she was not involved in the original letting of the cable franchise and asked if a loophole wo�ld be created by this action or if there was a reason for omitting this in original ordinance. Mr. Weyandt stated no loopholes are being created. The proposal is simply for renegotiation or modification and does not involve a new franchise. My guess, he said, is that the people who drafted the current franchise thought more about what they wanted in the franchise at that time rather than what would happen five or 6 years later when someone might want to modify it. ln answer to a question on who the city representatives would be to work on the renegotations it was pointed out that Gerald Strathman, Council Research Director, is the first one to be involved. The Chair asked that the Public Works Committee be included. Councilmember Rettman said she has no problem with the procedure but her concern was should we even have the procedure. She asked for more time to study it. Tlie Chair asked if there was a problem with a time period to begin negotiations. Greg Haupt said in discussing this matter with Continental he had suggested beginning in 1990 for budget purposes. Mr. Weyandt said his thought was to wait until the resolution became effective and then notify thern the 120� day period would start. No action required on this item. Green Lanterns - Since Councilmember Dimond was not present when this matter was discussed, he asked what action was taken. He was advised tl�e matter had been taid over until the Planning Commission study was completed. Mr. Dimond then talked about the three lighting systems presentty in use - the lantern style, the post style modern lantern on top of a steel post and the bent straw. The bent straw and the post top lighting are spaced at same spacing because of the way the lighting works, he said, but the green lanterns require much tighter spacing which is really why the cost is so high. He further said he had asked Traffic Division to put a model together putting the post top light on top of post to see how it looked and it doesn't look half bad. I think it is an exciting possibility that would allow us to get costs down and something we could adopt in the future. He suggested the other committee members might want to go out and look at the model . No further discussion. Meeting adjourned: 10: 10 A.M. 14. Other Business.