Loading...
Public Works Cte Minutes 11-30-1988 � � • .Roger �J. Goswitz, Chair PUBLIC WORKS COMMITT MEETING November 30, 1988 - City Council Chambers PRESENT: Roger J. Goswitz, Chair Councilmember Janice Rettman Councilmember James Scheibel Councilmember Tom Dimond (arrived late in meeting) OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Hoheisel, Ron Glassman, John Saumweber, Paul St. Martin. Tom Stadsklev, Dick Sobiech. Kevin Nelson, Gregory Haupt, Peter White, Chris Nicosia. Jerry Segal, Don Sobania, Brian Bonner, Tom Weyandt, Dave Nelson, 5usan Kimberly, Mike Kasson, Roy Bredahl. 1. The minutes of November 23, 1988 were approved as submitted. 2. VACATION: Petition of Port Authority for the vacation of part of Pearl, Charles and Curfew Streets bounded by Eustis, University, Berry and Pearl Streets for the purpose of developing Westgate Office Industrial 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 which 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 should reseil 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 AND �IGHTING 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 in October and what was accomplished that night was trust between our department and the residents. A series of additional meetings was requested. This past month a meeting was held with the neighbors and NSP concerning the � _ ` bur in of th • y g e utilit�es and a good discuss�on was had. Another meeting is planned with the residents in January regarding the retaining wall. As a result of these meetings, the residents have a clear and better understanding of what is invotved 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 Final Qrders would be submttted. 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 hirn when they are ready to present another update. 6. FINAL ORDER: lmproving the following st�eets with a bituminous paving, concrete curb and gutter, concrete 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. (bounded 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 A L1GHTING 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 Ptaygrounds. 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. MOTION: by Councilmember Rettman to recommend approval of Items #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 explained a SAC charge is a charge paid by the builder or property owner for a new sewe� connection. Metro Waste Control Commission decides what the increase is going to be and passes it on to the city. Councilmember Rettman noted the copy of the Resolution she had � • was not signed by the proper people. The Chair stated he would check to make sure it was signed when it came to the Council. No one appeared. MOTION: by Councilmember Rettman to recommend approval was passed on a 3-0 vote, Rettman. Scheibel, Goswitz. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER D-9954: Approving "Temporary Permit to Construct" allowinq the 5tate to contract for the Lake Street Bridqe plan. Peter White. Valuations Division, explained 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 basicaliy aliows them to go on the property for construction of the bridge prior to getting ttie 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 conxnittee. 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. OISCUSSION: 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 CortWnission study is completed. Councilmember Rettman said she was witling 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 Planning Cortmission study is completed. 12. DISCUSSION: Rainleader Disconnect issue. Councilmember Rettman said she has some concerns about the variance process for rainleaders and Councilmember 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 the property owners which she said both indicate variance procedures do exist. She then passed out the Variance Policy adopted by the Administr•ation and Public Works and noted Item 6 indicates if the variance is granted. a letter wiil be sent to the � • property owner and in Items 8 8 9 if variance is denied. the owner will be notified by letter and that letter will state that the owner can appeal this decision 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 all 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 Appeals 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 appeal and an appeal process. lt was clearly the intent of the Council to have an appeals process, she added. Ron Glassman, Chair, Board of Appeals, then spoke and said when this issue was first brought to the Board of Appeais 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 appeal procedure from the decision of the Director of Public Works. The Public Works Director can request a recommendation and advice of the Board of Appeais 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 availabie. 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. 5egal agreed to prepare a draft for the Committee. Mr. Glassman asked if they should hold up hearing these appeals. He • atso 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. d , � • Roy Bredahl, Sewer Engineer, said he supports the Board of A eals and PP the only problem was the misinformation originally received by the Chairman of the Board of Appeals. We feel they should 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 replied that if too many variances are granted in one area we may have to rebuiid the sanitary sewers or we wilt 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. l3. DISCUSSION: Continental Cablevision -{approximately ten minutes). • Greg Haupt, Director of City-wide lnformation 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 exptained he has used the PUC statutes and rules as a model 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 ail the documents and pertinent information. One of the problems we have now is that we don't know who the 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 affirrt�tion; 9) keep tFie flow of evidence fairiy simple; 10) ali 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 shail • 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 would 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. The 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 them the 120�day period would start. No action required on this item. • Green Lanterns - Since Councilmember Dimond was not �+resent when this matter was discussed, he asked what action was taken. He was advised t1�e matter had been laid over until the Planning Commission study was completed. Mr. Dimond then talked about the three lighting systems presently in u5e - 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. •