11/08/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 11/8/2000 made to the violators. They asked that City Council investigate what has occurred. Law Director Gareau commented that, after investigating the issue, he made a determination and made a directive to Mr. Ryan, the Assistant Prosecutor, to prosecute the violators consistent with the findings of the Engineering Department. That has been done. Mr. Patwell agreed and the case would be heard in court next week, so he and Mr. Misiunas were not at liberty to discuss the actual case. However, this past week they had to inform the Mayor that the Engineering Department had been out almost every day assisting the violating residents in complying after nine months of the violators ignoring verbal and written requests. They want a committee of Council to investigate the actions of the Engineering Department. Law Director Gareau explained that it is not the duty and obligation of the City Council to investigate administrative personnel. The purpose of committee meetings is to act upon legislation. It would not be appropriate for the Council to make a finding as to whether or not there is misconduct on the part of administrative employees-they are legislators, not administrators. Law Director Gareau noted that, if somebody from the Engineering Department was assisting the violators to abate, he would think that would be satisfactory because the problem would be resolved. Mr. Patwell said he felt concessions were being made. Law Director Gareau said that, if what is being done is to bring the violators in compliance with the grade which is established by the city, he does not have a problem with that. Eventually, some court is going to tell them to do it anyway. Mr. Misiunas said he believed they were being treated as the criminals and not the victims in this case. Councilman Limpert commented that the discussion should not continue as this is a pending case. Mr. Patwell and Mr. Misiunas thanked Council for their time, and President Saringer thanked them for bringing it to Council's attention. Jim Burns, 3978 Dover Center Road • Had two procedural questions about Ordinance 99-108: 1) If a service to a property goes across Lorain Road before it goes to a private pole and then goes into the facility, would that line be required to be placed under Lorain Road? 2) If service is provided to a building from a neighboring parcel would the property owner be allowed to invade the neighboring parcel in order to put that line underground? Council Gareau said that, as to the first question, he would not interpret the ordinance to the extent that it proposes a potential legal question. He believes that the Engineering Department would be in charge of that after consultation with the Law Department. However, he does not imagine that anyone would ever be permitted to dig up Lorain Road to put a wire under it, nor would the city ask them to do so. Law Director Gareau said the intent of the ordinance is to affect the side of the street where the utility is going from the utility pole to the building. There is nothing in the ordinance that requires somebody to dig up Lorain Road and put a line underneath it. Councilman Gareau noted that this provision has been in place for some time with regard to residential properties and there has not been a problem. Regarding Mr. Burns' second question, Law Director Gareau noted that it is not the intent of the ordinance to allow people to dig up their neighbor's property. The intent of the ordinance is to allow people to go from the facility that services the property that is .~" either on the boundary line or within the property and then drop the line down and put 9