Excerpts from the meeting appear below –
The Public Works Committee of the City of Raleigh met in regular session on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present:
Councilor Eugene Weeks, Chairman Assistant City Manager Tansy Hayward
Councilor John Odom Interim Public Works Director Richard Kelly
Absent and Excused City Attorney Thomas McCormick
Councilor Wayne Maiorano Transportation Planner Jason Myers
Civil Engineer Thomas Fiorello
Sr. Transportation Engineer Jed Niffenegger
Transportation Planning Manager Eric Lamb
These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated.
Mr. Weeks called the meeting to order indicating Mr. Maiorano was absent and excused from today’s meeting, and the following items were discussed with actions taken as shown.
. . .
Laurel Hills Projects
- When will Laurel Hills projects be tabled?
- − Approximately a year
- One project never met city standards due to a missed property and a forged signature.
- NTMP policy changes don’t apply due to the petition being invalid.
William Cromer, 4024 Balsam Drive, submitted a prepared statement and summarized its contents; the body of which is as follows:
“I presented a number of comments at the Public Works Committee meeting of November, 9th, 2014. The comments were directed at changes to the NTMP document that were proposed by city staff. My original comments still stand.
“For today’s meeting, I have not received advance notice of what changes to the NTMP document are being proposed by city staff. Lacking this information, I propose that the following two measures be considered:
- Invalidation of past petitions due to NTMP revisions. When revisions to the NTMP document change terms and conditions that were in effect when petitions were collected, then such petitions shall be invalidated, and new petitions shall be initiated in conformance with the new NTMP document.
“Here is an example: In a current project, citizens were told by staff that their signature was simply requesting a study, and the project wouldn’t happen if the citizens didn’t agree with the staff’s design. No majority percentage was mentioned. Recently, staff has proposed a 75% minimum no vote. This is so onerous as to violate the implied process at the time of signing. Thus the petition should be invalidated.
- Project termination due to misconduct. Regardless of procedures for cancellation or removal via citizen petition, there also needs to be a straightforward method to cancel a project when citizens or staff violate the criteria and processes spelled out in the NTMP document. This method should not require the gathering of citizen petition signatures in great numbers. Perhaps a ruling by the City Attorney is adequate.
“Here is an example: In a current project, improper signatures were on the petition. And the petition gatherers misrepresented facts to the petition signers. The conditions in the NTMP document were not met and the project must be canceled.
“Thoughtful revisions to the NTMP document are important, so as to insure that traffic calming solutions and resources are directed to the areas having the greatest need….”
. . . . . .