241374` 24�3'74
ORIGINA�TO CITY CLERK
CITY OF ST. PAUL FOENCIL NO.
;� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
;' COUNCIL L TION— N L FORM
'' PRESENTED BY � � December 17, 1968
COMMISSIONE Robert F. Peterson ATF
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway �
Administration, is holding a public hearing the week of December 16,
1968, at the Department of Transportation Building, Washington, D. C.
for the purpose of receiving comments on the proposed regulation
requiring the holding of two public hearings on new highway projects
, on the Federal Aid System, and also setting up certain appeal processes,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council , under Resolution C. F. 241239, adopted
by the Council December 6, 1g68, authorized and directed the Commissioner
' of Public Works of the City of St. Paul and/or his duly authorized
represenfative to appear at said hearing, and to so notify the Federal �
� Highway Administrator, and
,
' WHERFA S, The Federal Highway Administrator has notified the
� Commissioner of Public Works that he is scheduled to make a statement• of
' the city's viewpoint on the proposed regulation during the afternoon of ��
� December 19th;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE80LVED That the statement attached
' hereto is hereby approved, and
i
� BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Chief Engineer of the Department
of Public Works�is hereby authorized and directed to present said statement
' at the aforementioned public hearing on December 19, 1968•
�
I
;
�, - - --•� -
,
DEC 181968
� COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19—
Yeas Nays
' Carison �E(� 18 1968
Dalglish Approve� 19—
Meredith �n Favor
Peterse�
Sprafku Mayor
' �Against �«�
' Tedesco �
p� '�{y�,�M �7' Y.L7T.::°p'
ti7��.G.�,�w��.�6��i::::f�
Mr:Vice Preeid�xt (Peterson) p�gLISHEt � 21 1968
' �O
w
' �
� �13
. . ��
�� .
I
� . � .
I
r � � � .
� STATEMENT OF EUGENE V. AVERI', ST. PAUL CHIEF ENGINEER �
� - � • -
' - On Behalf of the City Councit of Saint Paul ,
� on �
PROPOSED FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON PUBLIC HEARINGS, •TOGETHER 411TH ,
' LOCATION AND DESIGN APPROVAL (A NEW PART 3 TO TITLE 23 OF THE
, _ CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS) .
at
` Public Hearing Conducted the Week of October 16, 1968, in
" Washington, D. C. , by the Federal Highway Administrator
�
� r
t
�� .
} • -
�� .. � � " -
� " -
i;
,
� Good Afternoon, Gentlemen: � .
�'� My name is Eugene V. Avery, Chief Engineer of the St. Paul Department of
,� Public Works, and I am here representing the City Council of St. Paul , who have
� . - �
authorized and directed me to make this statement.
� Let me say first, that we are very appreciative of this opportunity to express
' our views of these proposed additions to the federal regulations. They deal with .
, subjects in which local officials as well as state and federal officials have a
' very vital interest. Comprehensiveness of highway planning, preservation and
enhancement of urban living quality, public hearings and appeal procedures are all ,
matters with which we are very closely concerned, perhaps even more closely and
_ personally than are you gentlemen on the federal level . Our elected and appointed
officials are accountable directly to local individuals and groups affected by
urban highway development and are looked to by their constituents for adequate
and proper representation. If the impact of the highway is adverse, in the
opinion of a citizen, local officials are about� the only ones to whom he can effec-
f,
F� , tively assign responsibility, and vote against, if he is unhappy with what is done
1' .
�' to his environment, or to his special interest. So, gentlemen, what you and the
State Highway Departments establish as policies and procedures in local areas, is
to us much more than just an intellectual or phitosophic exercise.
Throughout the highway program, and especially during the interstate develop-
ment program during the last decade, we have been much concerned that local
interests, goals and objectives--both public and private--would be futly considered.
On the whole, while we have had to iron out a few differences of opinion with the
Minnesota Highway Department, we have been pleased and satisfied with highway
development in our area. We have approved and supported, as has the Minnesota
Highway Department, the increasing emphasis on comprehensive planning and
-1-
� eYaluation of social , economic, and environmental effects of urban highway develop-
, •
� �� • .
� ' ment. St. Paul was an important participant in the Joint Program, a comprehensive,
�
� coordinated planning effort conducted the last few years in the Twin Cities by
� metropolitan counties and cities together with the Highway Department, the Bureau
,
! of Public Roads, and the Metropotitan Planning Commission. We are now in tbe
1
� process of organizing a new comprehensive metropoli•tan planning structure involving,
� in addition to the former participants, additional municipalities, the newly created
: Metropolitan Transit Commission, and the Metropolitan Council , which supersedes the
� Metropolitan Planning Commission.
Gentlemen, we in St. Paul have been very much concerned with the social ,
• economic and environmental effects described in the new Part 3 of Title 23 of the
� Code of Federal Regulations. We approve and support the two-hearing concept as
described in your notice of proposed regulations. Actually, the two-hearing
�
, procedure has been in effect in Minnesofa since last May.
4!e do recommend, though, that the proposed Section 3. 17 of the new Part 3
� not be approved in its present form. Since we object only to this one sectiQn, I
, , will direct my remaining remarks to that point. �
, It seems to us that in urban highway planning the public has a right to expect
� not only comprehensiveness of planning but also timely and responsible decision-
,
making. It seems to us that considerable delay may well occur as a result of the
appellate procedures whereby any "interested party" may stay the action of the
' . highway departments and the federal division engineer by filing an appeal with
�
' the Federat Highway AdministraYor. Undue delay in decision-making can be disastrous
to a citizen owning property which either is, or may be involved in, right-of-way
acquisition. A cloud is cast over his property to such an extent that often he
. cannot sell it, and, of course, should not improve it under the circumstances. Some
existing property is likely to deteriorate. Loans and insurance may become
difficult to obtain. New developments may be deferred or established in alternate
locations, thus preventing possible enhancement of a neigh�orhood. Public
-2-
� , , , , =improvements, such as local streets, sidewalks, sewers, and lighting are likely to
� be discontinued or delayed thus further tend'ing to deteriorate neighborhoods.
,
. The heavy impact of delay on private property and on the preservation of neighbor-
r hoods may be exactly the opposite of the objective implicit in the comprehensive
�
' ' planning and hearing requirements set forth elsewhere in the proposed regulations.
j The amount of property and the number of citizens subjected to worry, uncertainty,
` and anirriosity toward bureaucracy may be huge if a corridor has been approved but
, no specific alignment or design adopted firmly. • ,
1
� Also, of course, excessive delay may actually raise the cost of the highway
� •
� developmenfi because of staffing, scheduling, and financing uncertainties both on
I the part of the Highway Department and on the part of contractors.
� These delays could presumably be initiated by anyone who says he has an
; interest and can produce some plausible-sounding arguments, which is not too
1 . �
� difficult when one is attempting to define "public interest" or social , economic,
�
' or environmentai effects. The term "interested party" is not defined in the
i �
; - proposed regulation, which does nevertheless invite appeals. Gentlemen; to the
, St. Paul City Council , which is very close indeed to the public, on dozens of
public hearings each month, it seems probabte that an avalanche of appeals will
�
be made to the Federal Highway Administrator and perhaps to the federat courts
,
� . as a matter of standard procedure, if Section 3. 17 of the proposed regulation is
adopted in its present form. Almost every public improvement has objectors,
• often articulate and willful people with special personal interests, so we may
expect many irresponsible appeals which inevitably will delay the highway
development.
How will the Federal Highway Administrator process and judge the appeals?
We hope and assume he will make judgments, not on the basis of least objection,
but rather on the basis of the broad objectives and comprehensive considerations
_ outlined in the rest of the proposed regulations, This being so, we assume that
-3-
1 �
i
i� , � '
� .
. . � �
� in practically all instances he will agree with the considered judgments of the
;
, highway departments and the division engineers who will have followed the .
.
exceller�t procedures you propose to est'ablish. So we see delay as the main effect
of proposed Section 3. 17. •
+ .
' There seems also to be some inconsistency in the philosophy behind the
,
' proposed regulation, in that one part of it arrogates decision-making power to
, the federal government, while another part goes in�o detail to ensure local communF-
, '
� cation and participation and preservation of the local urban environment. It seems
�
' to us that existing administrative remedies and appeal to local and state courts is
�
. an adequate safeguard of citizen rights and that the state and local governments .
are in a better position to judge the social , economic and environmental effects of
,
- the highway than is a remote federal administrator notas directly accountable to a
� local or state citizenry as are city and county governments and state highway
departments.
, 4/e do not object to delay if some purpose is served. However, it seems to us
; that the proper role of federal regulation is to estabtish s'tandards, policies,
, and procedures. If these requirements and communication processes are followed,
� and if the highway location and design standards are met, it seems to us that
decisions on social , economic and environmental effects should be made by local and
; state people who, after all , are the ones who live in the environment.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Ci:ty Council , I thank you very much for this
opportunity to express St. Paul 's viewpoint. -
, -4- �
` DUrLICAT6 TO PRINTER CITY OF ST. PAUL HOE NCIL No_ 2413'74. �
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM
PRESENTED BY ��`•t �• P��4I"f� � �C�¢,! �7� �+"_
COMMISSIONER ATF
1#I��AS. ti» dapsrt�a�►t o� Transpc��tattop. �'sderai Hi�y
I�dMlnistrattoh, is holdtng s publ ic h�atinq ths wMtk of �c�bst* 16+
1968, at ths Dspatt�t of T�r�ns�ortatfor� �uilding, Wa�hlnytor�, 0. �.
for ths pu�ss of t��tvinq co�ts o+a �h� propossd r�rl+�tior�
r�qu i t i ng th• hol d 1 ng o� t+�o pub i tt hsit�f r�gs on �w h 1 ghrwy proJ�ct�
on th� i�sd�ra 1 A i d Systari� �nd �1 so �tt i n� up �srta i n �p�a i procstsss.
and �
1iH�R�J1�, the C t ty Cv�mc t i. undsr �sbl tat t on C. t�. 2�12�9. adopt�d
by th• Councll b�ce�r 6� 1968, suthorf�� and direct+td th� �ts�lo�er
ot Pabl ic iibrk� of th� �i�y s�f �t. �Mul aadfoE his duly a+�tharit�d
t��p��s�tattve� to ap�a� at �sid h+�aring� and t€� so notify ths �sdsrat
Hi�y Ad�tni�trato�, and
I�H�A�. 'rh� ��d�ra1 Hiy�ay Ad�inlstrator Mas notifisd th�
Go�Mi#sion�ir of P�b11� lrorks that 1» is sth�dul�d to wak� • stat�t of
ths cfty's viswpoint on ths �ropo*sd r�gut�rtfoi► c�rin9 th• if��rnoon of
' ��bsr 19tM,
1�1, �`ti�R�I�QR�+ �� 1T R�141�En That th� sta��nt atta�
hsreto is h�r�by ap�rovsd, �d
8� IT FtittH�t� �SOl11�D TF�at th• Chlaf ffaqinssr of thie Dspart�nt
of Public 1lorks ts har�by aathorizsd and dir�ctsd to pr�sa�t satd stat�t
at th� �for�ntit�n+�d public ha�rinq on �c�wbsr 19, 1968.
� QEC � 8 1968
COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19—
Yeas Nays ��i Y $ 1�68
Carlson •
Dalglish ABproved 19—
Meredith Tn Favor
�Retersoa— �
Sprafka Mayor
Tedesco A gainst
�:..`..�„� : �_ ..,,�,t���P,��.;��� .
�a, f � '��
�, Vies Preeid�t (F�,reraon� .
°��