Two bureaucratic giants have descended on our little city. Should we placate them and hope they leave us alone, or should we stand up to them?
ODOT has decided to repave Interstate 84 from Multnomah Falls to Herman Creek. They plan to begin in August and continue for 15 months. We don't know when they will be through Cascade Locks, but it is clear we will hear it when they arrive. They will be grinding, pounding and hammering all night every night. Their average decibel production will be at least twice what is allowed by our ordinances. They are asking us to waive the noise ordinance. In exchange, they are offering to have a noise meter with them at the work site. If they use it, ODOT will be able to tell us how loud their noise is. I have asked the council to consider requesting further concessions or mitigation from this agency. How do you think we should handle this issue?
The U.S. Forest Service allows our electric utility use a right of way for sending electricity to customers who live outside of city limits. Historically this has been a nominal fee - estimated at around $600 per year. This year, for the first time since 1974, the Forest Service has raised the fee to over $4600 and it will be well over $5000 next year. Even without the fee increase, we have been told that our electric department makes less money than we spend in sending electricity over this land. Now that deficit will grow. The Forest Service is one of our out of town customers. Their fee used to be slightly less than their electric bill. Now it is way above the electric bill. Our city's policy is that we don't raise fees without a vote - even fees that have been around for more than a quarter century. Could we hold the Forest Service to this standard? What, if any, options do we have other than accepting and paying the bill? Is it worth pursuing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Councilman for Cascade Locks
- Lance Masters
- This blog is intended as a way for people interested in Cascade Locks to share ideas and opinions. Posts that are interpreted as hindering the free flow of ideas and opinions may be removed. Please be encouraged to discuss ideas and opinions rather than individuals and names.
12 comments:
Good luck on getting any concessions from ODOT. They "ARE" the slumbering giant U just have to work with, IMO.
On the Forest Service fee, holy cow ! that's a huge hike ! Well, since the Scenic Area is another one of those lovely federal mandates we get NO money to deal with impacts such as we can't expand our electrical service to more customers outside city limits in order to help pay for the damn thing then my suggestion is we ask the Forest Service for a discount since we're impoverished, etc. Or maybe cut service to F.S. sites.
Lance,
Dealing with ODOT is analogous to dealing with a hydra that isn't even aware of it's other heads. When the city wanted to make some modifications to WaNaPa years ago, one woman stood in the way as the city didn't have the correct contacts to work around her, it took several years to achieve our goals. It would be easy to upset others who were not
at the council meeting and would feel we were coming out of left field with our requests. I would deal with each part of the agency individually and not try and address all of them through the two gentlemen who attended Monday's meeting and undoubtedly felt bushwhacked.
As to the Forest Service, they're out of line with their request for money. They sound more like Union Pacific than a federal agency. It might be time to have people from our congressional delegation made aware of the forest service's demands and see if we can get some help from our Washington delegation.
Robb
For the record, we did not surprise the ODOT representatives at the March 9 meeting. We notified them and their superiors of several possibilities including what actually occurred.
ODOT's noise will be worse than some of the trucks driving by? I hear the trucks at night at my house and I live by the river. They won't be on one section for very long, so the noise won't last too long for any one area. I'd rather they did it and were gone than drag it out. I also don't live right next to the freeway, so perhaps those are the people we should hear from. I'll only hear them as a rumble for as long as they are by the city. Our friends who live by the freeway will have to deal with real noise. Ok, some who live by the freeway aren't friends, but those who are should speak up, short and louder or long and medium loud? Let them decide.
Now there is something we can do about the forest service. We can raise their rates to match their charge. OH!! WE CAN'T!! DOH!! The brilliant minds behind the no fee raising without a vote have stopped us. So we take it in the shorts unless we want to pay for an election. They prove themselves to be less than brilliant again. Here is a situation where we are being 'held up' in the bandit sense, and the City Council has it's hands tied. Thanks again oh forward thinkers who left us such a stinker of a law. We need to vote on an ordinance in the next general election that is specifically written to allow the city to raise it's electric rates to cover increases in right of way charges if the entity increasing right of way charges receives electricity from the city. That would be specific enough so rates can't be raised for everyone, but includes all who would 'hold us up' with their right of way charges yet expect the same cheap power from the city. As long as no specific entity is named, I think it works.
How can you raise the rates on one customer without raising the rates on all customers? Target the Forest Service, go ahead. Do you really want to piss off an entity that has Federal Attorneys with a lot of time and money on their hands? Who wants first try at belling the cat?
You think that's specific enough? "Keep thinking, Butch. That's what you're good at"
The Forest Service is usually reasonable on most issues. This one seems to be the exception. I suspect either something has changed (an attempt to make up for a cut in funding)or the city's not dealing with the correct person. As to the ordinance requiring our going out to get a vote for an increase in fees, there will always be problems with it as this issue points out. We'll just never be able to foresee them coming or what their effect will be. People will have to reach their own conclusions as to whether this hurts them and or the city enough to change or rescind the ordinance. Personally I hope it is rescinded. I don't always agree with what the city council does, but by and large I trust them to do the correct thing for the city in most instances.
Robb
Good idea Arnie! I am sure the citizens of CL would approve an initiative that would properly allocate the appropriate costs for ALL services delivered outside of our City. I for one, find it astonishing we have tolerated this subsidy for as long as we have. This illustrates the years of bad decisions and lack of oversight, not to mention the total absence of respect for rate payers inside the City limits.
Guess this means there are no more "excess funds" in the electric reserves to tap into for more irresponsible overspending.
To question any proceedures concerning maintenance of Interstate 84 one must understand the history of our Interstate Highways.
Our Interstate Highways were created under the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956.
In addition to facilitating private and commercial transportation, it's major purpose was to provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.
That said it falls under the jurisdiction of Federal law, the armed forces and military law.
Although we may disagree with the noise levels that rehabilitation of the Interstate will impose on the citizens ODOT is only a keeper of the Interstate and the only rules that they are bound by are legislated on the federal level.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has defined a set of standards for all aspects of our Interstates which must be met unless a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is obtained. This includes noise levels.
In reading through the standards concerning maintenance and repair of the Interstate Highway system the reason that ODOT will be doing this work 24 hours a day is because a refurbishment of this magnitute will interfere with and slow the commerece of the United States and in case of foreign invasion could hamper troop deployment and transport of military equipment and supplies.
Concerning ODOT and their responsabilities there will be an agreement with the United States Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway System covering ownership, operation, inspection, maintenance and rehabilitation of Interstate 84 between not only the State of Oregon but every State which Interstate 84 occupies in each of these states. These States will be referred to in this contract as Capitol Regional Jurisdictions.
In this contractual agreement between the Capitol Regional Jurisdictions First and foremost you will find that Interstate 84 is owned by the United States government and the holding agency having custody and accountability is the Federal Highway Administration. Any and all work on the Interstate must follow Federal laws and regulations.
Now the noise standards the Federal Government will pay attention to are the noise standards set by ANSI the American Nationals Standards Institute.
The Institute oversees the creation, promulgation and use of thousands of norms and guidelines that directly impact businesses in nearly every sector: from acoustical devices to construction equipment.
ANSI is in charge of the accrediting programs that assess conformance to standards they set. All construction equipment that will be used on the Interstate 84 rehabilitation project will have met the ANSI noise standards or it could not have been sold in the United States.
I as a citizen who lives next to the Interstate am sure not going to like the noise 24 hours a day next to my home but I know that there is not one thing that can be done about it. You see the needs of the many being the Commerce of the United States and the Military needs in case of foreign Invasion outweigh the needs of the few being not only me but every citizen in our city.
My questions to City government would only be why would my local government attempt to challenge the federal government or do we have deeper pockets than the Federal government of which I am unaware of?
My advise to city government would be to move on as I am sure ODOT will have a decibal meter available and anytime you question the readings all ODOT will do is disclose the ANSI standard for the equipment used so no matter what our noise ordinance says the city will be trumpt by Federal law and the city will lose everytime. ODOT knows that the Interstate is not within the city limits and not required to abide by any ordinance we have because in reality it is owned by the Federal government for the military.
After reading through our noise ordinance city governments time may best be served by acknowledging the ANSI standards in our own ordinance and realize that this ordinance is not in compliance with those laws and change it to be in compliance with the law.
That should be the discussion.
Let's make the city's discussion and reaction to this situation one that begins establishing our own sound wall system by encouraging/requiring a green belt around the highway. When the 12-acre parcel across from the fire station was cut, my neighborhoods noise level doubled. This could double as a beauty strip around town. We know it may be decades before ODOT places any sound walls around Hwy. 84, Why are we not looking ahead and saving our naturally constructed noise protection?
As far as the the U.S. Forest Service charging for a right of way in the first place maybe the city should look to the law for a sollution.
ORS 225.020 grants Authority of cities to acquire, own and operate utilities within and without city limits. (1) When the power to do so is conferred by or contained in its charter or act of incorporation, any city may build, own, operate and maintain waterworks, water systems, railways and railroads, electric light and power plants, within and without its boundaries for the benefit and use of its inhabitants and for profit. To that end it may:
(c) Acquire right of way, easements or real property within and without its boundaries for any such purpose.
(2) In exercising such powers, any city may bring actions for the condemnation or taking of private property for public use in the same manner as private corporations are now authorized or permitted by law to do.
Federal law which is enforced by the Department of Energy also has condemnation proceedures.
Normally I would have no problem trying to use these laws to play hardball with the U.S. Forest service but right off the bat I see that our very City Charter does not contain the required information for our City to be a Municiple Utility in the first place and can only hope that our Act of Incorporation contains the legally required information to have a Municiple Utility and exercise a condemnation proceeding for public use. If not the city is at risk as a whole.
As I suspect that Embarq will also be getting a rate increase can you spell legal partner?
As State law prohibits the city from passing fees from the costs of services to serve areas outside of the boundaries of the city not directly conected to the cost of service to customers of the city the city should inform the citizens of the city within the boundary that this does not effect them rate wise and begin public disscussion with all parties directly connected.
If the city does not want to exercise their right of condemnment and the directly effected customers oppose the rate hike then maybe the city should relinquish control of the utility at the boundary of the U.S. Forest Service and wish them luck in operating and maintaining the utility for not only themselves but for their new customers.
Just a thought.
My first reaction to Lances "tit for tat" approach to ODOTs request was "yeah, right on!" But after thinking about it I think we should all just suck it up and let them maintain the hwy. and deal with our other ODOT issues separately. Let's wait and pick our fights when we have a chance to win.
ODOT's request for a waiver to our noise ordinance has been resolved. The city council voted to grant the waiver that ODOT requested.
Post a Comment