Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2010-12-15BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. December 15, 2010 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Wykstra, Brock, Warden, Goldsmith OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Zumoff Information Management Specialist - Myers City Chamberlain – Parsons EXCUSED: Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin DAC Liaison – Roberts ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Supt. Gray explained that City Attorney Hoffman distributed a resolution for item 8.2A entitled “Partial Expungement of 2005 Sidewalk Assessment for 218-220 University Avenue - Resolution” at the start of the meeting. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Peterson reported that there had been another accidental release of hydrolysate from Cornell University Vet School. A brief discussion followed on the floor regarding the fact that this was the second accidental release, how it had happened, and what can be done to prevent it from happening again in the future. She further reported that she would be meeting with Town of Ithaca Supervisor Engman on December 16, 2010. She stated she would be discussing the Stundtner property that recently experienced flooding problems from a water source originating in the Town of Ithaca. COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD No one appeared to address the Board. REPORTS: Water and Sewer Department: Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that crews would begin work on the water service at 806 East State Street next week. He stated that the work would be done after regular business hours on Sunday and Monday nights. The Board then excused him from the meeting early. Parks Commission: Parks Commission Chair, Dan Krall, addressed the Board to report on their concerns regarding the use of city park land by private entities. They are particularly concerned about private organizations which are assuming direction over park resources such as the Dragon Boat Club, the use of docks along the city golf course, Cascadilla Boat Club, and the Wharton Studio Group at Stewart Park. He stated that the Parks Commission would like the Board of Public Works to provide direction and guidance as to how they should consider requests for use of city parks by both individuals and groups. The Parks Commission would also like to encourage the Board to recommend a way that the City could be reimbursed by individuals or groups for use of the parks that would be fair and equitable. He further thanked Commissioner Brock, as the Board of Public Works liaison to the Parks Commission, for her active participation and involvement. 2 December 15, 2010 Mayor Peterson explained that the current city administration has been working to address some of the concerns raised by the Parks Commission regarding licenses for use of city land. They have been in communication with the Cascadilla Boat Club and the individuals involved with the Wharton Studio project. She stated that the city’s Special Event Team is also reviewing use fees for permits for use of city land for festivals and special events, and how to fairly apply them to for-profit and not-for-profit groups. Commissioner Brock noted that many groups are approaching the Parks Commission for selective use of city park land for gardens. She stated that New York State has very strict rules regarding the use of parkland that need to be considered as well when these requests are made. She referred to a 1988 Opinion of the New York State Controller which prohibits licenses which transfer rights beyond that of temporary privilege on property which is held in public trust. Shade Tree Advisory Committee – Plan to Address the Emerald Ash Borer Issue: Chair of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, Dr. Nina Bassuk, addressed the Board to provide the following information relating to the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer from Asia into the United States: Background The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a small beetle from Asia that has been spreading throughout the Midwest since the mid 1990’s killing the ash trees in its path---millions of ash trees in urban and rural settings. It was first detected in western New York State in the summer of 2009 and will gradually spread throughout the state. As of 2010 it has been positively identified in seven New York counties including Cattaraugus, Steuben, Ulster, Genesee, Monroe, Livingston and Greene. It may be only months before it will be found in Ithaca. Ithaca has 383 ash trees in the public right of way and in its parks. There are also many more uncounted ash trees in the natural areas within the city. We expect all these trees will be lost to the EAB unless the trees are treated over a ten-year period with an injectable pesticide. Otherwise the city will have to remove the trees, which as they get infested, become hazardous due to dead, falling limbs. The injection method of this pesticide recommends it over any sprays or drenches, in that there’s no leaching or airborne residue. Other communities already hit by the EAB invasion have been treating their best ash trees very successfully by this method for six years. The Shade Tree Advisory Committee (STAC) is developing a plan to pro-actively manage this pest. STAC feels that the city should begin treatment of its large, historic, best ash trees, basing the selection on the following criteria: Trees that provide a substantial function such as screening and shade Trees that are in good health and have sound structures Trees from all parts of the City Trees where the site is conducive to future growth Trees with a diversity of ages but especially large trees Trees that may be nominated for treatment by the public Based on our computerized tree inventory, it will be possible to efficiently evaluate our ash trees for treatment. There are approximately 200 ash trees with a ‘good’ rating. We recommend that a certified, experienced arborist be hired during the winter-spring of 2011 to perform this evaluation. It could be done for approximately $2,000. Removal Cost vs. Treatment Cost With no treatment all the ash trees will die and the city will incur a substantial cost of removing those trees, as much as $2,500 per tree for large trees in residential 3 neighborhoods. Disposal of the wood will bring additional costs, especially for large trees, which require renting grinding equipment. Treating the trees can be done for as little as $60 per year for a 20” diameter tree. After the arborist’s evaluation of trees worth saving, we will estimate the total yearly cost of treatment and return to the Board of Public Works with this information. If we treat all the documented trees in Ithaca that are rated ‘good’, the cost could be as much as $7,500. Next Steps Evaluate trees for treatment or removal on streets and in parks Prepare public outreach education. Work with Natural Areas Committee to address ash trees in natural areas Treat trees Begin removing trees and replanting Discussion followed on the floor regarding the success of the proposed treatment of the ash trees with the injectable pesticides. Dr. Bassuk noted that the success can be very high if done at the right time during the growing season. She noted that the cost in the committee’s plan only includes trees on city streets, right-of-ways, and in parks. It does not include private property, and the various natural areas in the City. She stated that there needs to be a public outreach program whereby the public is made aware of how to identify ash trees. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the need to inventory trees not identified by the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, the costs involved with treatment of the trees, removal of infected trees and trees rates less than “good”, and replanting of new trees. These costs could be very high and choices will need to be made as to what project or projects will not be done in order to pay for the cost of this possible tree emergency. Supt. Gray stated that he would prepare a resolution requesting funding from Common Council for this project for the Board’s consideration. HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS Partial Expungement of 2005 Sidewalk Assessment for 218-220 University Avenue - Proposed Resolution By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins WHEREAS, in July of 2005, the City of Ithaca replaced the sidewalk in front of the property at 218-220 University Avenue, after providing notice to the owners of certain defective conditions, and after the owners failed to correct said conditions; and WHEREAS, the property was sold in August of 2008, at which time the City had not been paid for the sidewalk work; and WHEREAS, after the assessment amount was approved by the Board and by Common Council, in 2009, the City sent a bill for that amount to the current owner; and WHEREAS, the current owner, as well as the former owner, through their attorneys, have objected to the sidewalk assessment and to the billing for it, on various grounds, and have requested that the Board expunge it; and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works, in consultation with staff, has considered these objections and the known facts of the matter; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board makes the following determinations: 1. Evidence from the City’s files shows that the former owners received a notice of the defective sidewalk sent on January 24, 2005, as well as a notice of the opportunity to object to an estimated assessment for the work, sent on March 1, 2007, and that the former owners discussed the sidewalk work with the Office of the City Engineer, as it was being done in 2005. 2. The 1/24/05 notice indicated that “this obligation transfers with the sale of your property. It is your responsibility to notify any new owner of this outstanding sidewalk notice.” 4 December 15, 2010 3. Although the 1/24/05 notice mentions a total of 200 square feet of defective sidewalk, upon arriving to do the work, the City’s contractor found that the entire sidewalk was defective and/or not compliant with City standards (for thickness), and replaced a total of 431.3 square feet. 4. The cost of replacing the sidewalk was $7.42 per square foot (amounting to $3200 for 431.3 square feet). Together with the standard 25% City administrative fee ($800), the total was $4000, which amount constituted the “estimated bill” as described in the 3/1/07 notice. 5. The former owners did not submit an objection to the proposed assessment during the time to do so, in 2007. 6. A City tax search was ordered by the sellers’ attorney, in July 2008, which search contained the following note: “SUBJECT TO 2005 SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS” (although no dollar amount was indicated on the form). and be it further RESOLVED, That, in light of the particular and unusual facts of this case, including that the former owners did not receive prior notice that the amount of sidewalk to be replaced would be increased from 200 square feet to 431.2 square feet, the Board hereby expunges from the assessment the portion representing the additional area of new sidewalk (231.3 square feet), leaving an unpaid assessment against the property in the amount of $1855 (200 square feet x $7.42 = $1484 + 25% [$371] = $1855), which amount shall not be subject to penalties or interest if it is paid within 30 days (i.e., by January 14, 2011); and be it further RESOLVED, That while by law this assessment attaches to the benefited property rather than to particular individuals, and the City can only accept the full payment thereof, the Board encourages the current and previous owners to resolve between them an equitable way to apportion or otherwise handle the burden of said reduced assessment, in light of the facts of the matter. City Attorney Hoffman explained that this is an unusual and complicated case stretching over a long period of time. He noted that the resolution provides a timeline and is an attempt to reach middle ground. He stated that the amount of the bill has been reduced substantially and is only for the original amount noticed to the previous owner. He further stated that the City has proof that the former owners received at least two notices regarding the work – one in 2005 and one in 2007. Attorney Scott Miller, on behalf of the former owners; and Attorney Richard Thaler on behalf of the current owners addressed the Board to thank them for their time and consideration on this request. Both attorneys indicated that this was a fair compromise. A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows: Carried Unanimously APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the September 8, 2010 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes – Resolution By Commissioner Brock: Seconded by Commissioner Goldsmith RESOLVED, That the minutes of the September 8, 2010 Board of Public Works meeting be approved with noted corrections. Amending Resolution: By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Brock RESOLVED, That the first paragraph on page five be amended to read as follows: “Supt. Gray mentioned the historical documents that were provided in the agenda related to the sidewalk program and noted that the documents provide almost twenty years of information about the program. He stated that staff finds the program 5 December 15, 2010 extremely demanding and there is a lot of explanation that occurs on a daily basis. He gave an example that if there are 100 miles of sidewalks (at 5 feet wide) multiplied by 5,000 feet in a mile, it equals 2.5 million sq. ft. of sidewalks. At $10 per sq. ft. and a 50 year life cycle the City would have approximately $500,000 per year in sidewalk expenses if the City were to take over all sidewalk replacements.” Carried Unanimously Main Motion As Amended: A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended Resulted As Follows: Carried Unanimously Approval of the September 22, 2010 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes – Resolution By Commissioner Brock: Seconded by Commissioner Goldsmith RESOLVED, That the minutes of the September 22, 2010 Board of Public Works meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT Fee Schedule for Use of City Property – Update and Discussion City Attorney Hoffman explained to the Board that the following decisions need to be made regarding the fees for use of City Land: • The fee for applying for a license/easement/permit • The fee for renewing a license/easement/permit • Are the categories of properties provided by the appraiser acceptable; as well as the fees? • What will the annual use fee be? • For the Commons, the City Clerk requested that the mobile vending rate for retail vendors be half that of the food vendors, is that acceptable? (Non-food vendors would become a separate category) • Is the chart provided by the appraiser’s dated December 7, 2010 complete? Commissioner Goldsmith stated that the City needs to also distinguish between non- parkland use and parkland use, and would like to consider those categories separately. City Attorney Hoffman agreed, but noted that the City has been licensing boat slips for decades and a legal opinion provided since then now considers that area parkland. He stated that in that case, the Board could choose not to renew the license agreements, or renew them at the old license rates which are below the appraiser’s fee. He asked the Board how they would like to proceed. Commissioner Brock stated that considering the legal restrictions on the licensing of parkland, she would prefer not to set rates for licensing of park land until it is determined that these arrangements are legally acceptable. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he would like the Board to set a more specific policy regarding waivers for minor residential situations that may arise to be dealt with at the Board’s discretion. City Chamberlain Parsons stated that the working group was agreeable to that suggestion and thought it was appropriate to provide waivers for minor residential encroachments. (The working group consisted of City Attorney Hoffman, City Chamberlain Parsons, City Controller Thayer, Superintendent of Public Works Gray, Engineer Yost, City Clerk Holcomb, and BPW Commissioner Brock) CC Liaison Zumoff questioned whether a residential private property owner might be able to purchase that portion of land that encroaches on to city property rather than continue to pay licenses/encroachment fees annually. Mayor Peterson and City Attorney Hoffman responded that there is an open bidding process for that purpose whereby somebody other than the private property owner might purchase the land. 6 Discussion followed on past policy and procedure for taking care of encroachments/easements that are discovered, which has been to issue a revocable license at no charge. These are usually dealt with on a case-by-case basis as properties are sold because lenders are requesting new surveys, and that is when these issues come to light. Commissioner Brock noted that with regard to the use of boat slips and city parkland, certain individuals and/or organizations feel a certain sense of entitlement to their control and use. Some are even leading community fund raising efforts to help renovate or improve the city property for their benefit and their use without the involvement of City staff. She further stated that any improvements to City facilities on city parkland should only be done at the direction and review of City staff. She requests further discussion on this situation. ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor