HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-DAC-2017-05-03Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2017
Present:
Chair Roberts
Vice Chair Scriber
DAC Members:
David McElrath
Erin Sember-Chase
CC Liaison Brock
Others Present:
Information Management Specialist – Myers
Transportation Engineer – Hathaway
Sidewalk Program Manager – Licitra
Excused:
DAC Members Anderson, Monroe, and Rappaport
Approval of Minutes:
Approval of the April 5, 2017 Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes -
Resolution
By Vice Chair Scriber: Seconded by DAC McElrath
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the April 5, 2017 Disability Advisory Council meeting
be approved as published.
Carried Unanimously
Discussion of Crucial Disability Issues that the DAC wants to ensure are
included as regular topics of the proposed new “Mobility and
Transportation Commission”
DAC Member Sember-Chase attended the meeting last night with members of
the W orking Group to re-organize and consolidate the city’s boards and
committees. She reported that there were about 15 - 20 people there, with
representation from the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, the Public Art
Commission, the Board of Fire Commissioners, and the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee. The meeting lasted only one hour which provided only enough time
to hear from the various committee members attending and not a lot exchange
between the two groups. The members of the working group were taking notes
as people spoke. They also wanted to ask people questions about the current
structure as far as what works, what doesn’t, and format of agendas. She stated
that the members who attended the meeting are opposed to the
recommendations because they feel specific issues of each board will not be
addressed and that it is too much information for just four commissions to
absorb. The members of the Working Group did say that the number of
members on each commission will increase from 7 to 9. She also reported that
the “Community and Quality of Life” commission name has been changed to
“Community and Sustainability” and the Working Group is re-examining city
residency requirements for members, so that not necessarily all commission
members must be city residents. The reason being is that they don’t won't to
exclude content experts that might not live in the City from participating, but who
might work in the City or spend a lot of time in the City. She did thank the
Working Group for addressing the problem; however, she voiced concern that in
the effort to consolidate the City may lose members that could be used to help
solve some of the issues that have may have impact the decision by the City to
consolidate. She noted to the Working Group members that people with
disabilities and low income have not been listed in any of the information
distributed thus far about the proposed four new commissions. She made
reference to the DAC explaining that mobility, transportation, and parking are
issues that they discuss regularly along with many other issues and her concern
that if the members on the commissions don’t have an ear to these issues they
won't know there is a need and project will proceed that will not necessarily work
for everyone. In the proposed new structure, there will be opportunity for
Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes May 3, 2017
2
“working groups” of content experts set up by each commission that will meet for
a specific topic discussion and provision of recommendations to the commission,
after which the working group would disband. She is not sure how members will
be chosen for the “working groups” without having to be appointed. She also
questioned if members of the new commissions would even recognize when
DAC issues need to be included. For example, the “Public Safety and
Information” commission, how will members know that they need input from that
sector of the population? It is going to be a big responsibility for 36 people
members of the four commissions to be all that for all things. She further stated
that she would love to see a follow-up or part II to this initial meeting where more
input could be provided; however, she is not sure how that would be done or
what is going to happen going forward.
CC Liaison Brock reported that at the last City Administration Committee
meeting, there was a discussion about standing working groups, and the
response was that there would be no standing working groups, that they would
only be called upon when specific input is needed on very specific topics. What
she just heard is that there is a plan to have a working group as a standard
working group - which she wonders if it will be a committee without staff to advise
commissions on a regular basis or would they just be called upon on when
needed for specific issues.
DAC Member Sember-Chase explained that her interpretation from the meeting
yesterday was what input is provided by the public (current board members)
could be set up on the next level down from the commissions themselves as far
as content experts or members who serve at will or as needed.
Vice Chair Scriber stated that she feels there is value to the working group
discussing on an ongoing basis the various topics covered by each commission.
If only one expert is relied upon for information you lose that brainstorming you
achieve in a group discussion, and that will be an enormous void left in the future
and which she feels is not being understood as presented by members of the
Working Group.
DAC Member Sember-Chase stated that a member from the Shade Tree
Advisory Committee stated the same thing. That current board members are the
ones who are experiencing these ongoing issues related to their particular board
and are currently considered the “content experts”; the proposed new
commissions will not have this resource.
Vice Chair Scriber feels that it is being assumed by the members of the Working
Group that it will be simple to contact content experts as needed for various
topics who can then meet as a working group to provide recommendations to the
commissions; she believes that it will be difficult to coordinate those types of
meetings. Most content experts work and have established commitments that
will make it difficult for them to meet on an “on call” basis as needed. She also
feels that issues related to disability are a topic that should be included under
each of the four new commissions’ responsibilities. She is very concerned about
disability related issues only being included under one commission, especially
using the Commons playground as an example. The committee established to
meet and discuss the design of the playground did not consider the need for
content experts for disabilities should be included in those meetings. As a result
of that omission, a playground was designed and built that is not accessible and
the City is now going to “content experts” to get their input on what and how
accessible items might be added to the playground at a significant additional cost
to the City. That is a mistake that will be repeated in the future in the proposed
new commission structure. She also wonders who will decide that content
experts need to be involved for certain topics and how will they be chosen.
Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes May 3, 2017
3
DAC Member Sember-Chase noted that the reasons cited for the proposed
changes in the structure of the City’s boards and committees is because there is
not enough staff to attend the meetings of current committees to provide support
to them. She feels that the proposal to consolidate all the city boards and
committees into four commissions will happen. In response, she would suggest
that instead of telling the members of the Working Group what’s wrong with the
proposal, the DAC should be telling them how they can include disability issues
in those commissions and assist them in that effort.
CC Liaison Brock explained that all of the proposed changes will require a
referendum and the public’s support for them by way of a vote at the General
Election in November; the proposal is not a done deal. She only says that
because she is someone that kept the City from abolishing the Board of Public
works through referendum. The mere fact that this is being put into place now
does not mean it will happen. The power is in the hands of the public at the next
election. She encouraged DAC members to keep that in mind, and noted that
she has experience in going in against the mainstream in public. She feels that
the concerns expressed by DAC members are very valid and do address issues
of why the consolidation is even being proposed. Current committee members
feel disillusioned, un-empowered, and lack staff support; which is the reason for
this being done. The proposal is being made to find a way to address those
issues and provide staff to each of the four commissions. It may not necessarily
be the solution and it will be dramatic because it will rewrite the charter of the
City. If enough people say they don’t agree, and it's not what they want there will
be opportunity to provide further input in the future.
Chair Roberts stated that one of the reasons he heard about why the proposal is
being made is due to lack of members and quorum issues. Even though that is
happening there are still members that care about what is going to happen. The
idea of using non-voting people as advisors, having the voting members on the
commissions, then the people they keep asking for input, not only on disabilities,
but other topics, for input regularly and yet don’t have a vote, he is not sure how
that will affect public participation. No matter what structure is chosen for the
boards and committees, there will be problems and tweaks that will need to be
made to meet everyone’s needs.
DAC Member Sember-Chase stated that she has seen, in the past 10 years, an
increase in people coming to the DAC for problems and input. That increase was
related to the care, commitment and investment of time by members of the DAC.
Now, that option is being removed and she is concerned what the public is
supposed to do in the future since there will no longer be a City board dedicated
to assist the public in this manner.
CC Liaison Brock noted that as far as the problem with quorum issues, she has
heard that many people apply to be on the various boards and committees but
are never appointed; applications are kept for a year and then discarded if
appointments aren’t made. The Mayor has the all the authority to power or
disempower a board or committee since he is the only one who can move
applications forward for approval and appointment by Common Council.
Committees could also approach Common Council to make a recommendation
to reduce the membership numbers to better make quorum for their meetings.
She also noted that appointments to boards and committees tend to cyclic
related to each new administration. At first many appointments may be made
and then as time goes by they seem to decrease.
Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes May 3, 2017
4
DAC Member Sember-Chase noted that the general outreach to public and
members of the city’s boards and committees by the Working Group has been
dismal. With the proposed new structure there will be even less opportunity for
input. So there is a concern about not only narrowing the membership numbers
but also the diversity of commission members. The Working Group itself does
not have a diverse group of people working to come up with recommendations;
will the make-up of the voting membership of the commissions look any different.
CC Liaison Brock noted that different people wanted a more diverse make-up of
members on the Working Group but could not get it. So, that point is very well
made.
Vice Chair Scriber asked where the DAC should put its efforts now, what can
they do to help make the proposed recommendations look better? It will take
time to put all of the DAC’s ideas and suggestions together on paper and will be
a project that should be done in order to provide additional input to the Working
Group.
Chair Roberts responded that the key issue to focus on is that there needs to be
a critical mass of people talking about disabilities on these commissions; the idea
of a subject expert is fine, but that won’t be the same as the DAC driving the
agenda and making the decisions. How can the DAC make sure there are
enough people who are diverse enough to say yes or no whether something will
impact people with disabilities and ensure that the commission members reach
out to the community for that input – how can the DAC ensure that its power
continues.
DAC Member Sember-Chase noted that it is the discussions of the diverse DAC
members that what makes the DAC work so well. That will not be the case in the
make-up of the proposed commission structure.
Vice Chair Scriber stated that the DAC represents a certain piece of people with
disabilities but there are even bigger issues for which there aren’t members at
the DAC to represent. There are so many other issues outside of what the DAC
may be involved with at this time that need to be considered; she is not sure
there is an understanding of that.
Chair Roberts reported that he received an e-mail a while ago from Chief of Staff,
Dan Cogan about what the DAC’s thoughts/input is on the proposed
recommendations to consolidate. He wondered if he should see if Chief of Staff
Cogan could meet with some of the DAC members to talk about its concerns with
the proposed changes. He agreed that the Commons Playground is a perfect
example of where the DAC should have been involved in the design of the
structure right from the start. Since it wasn’t it was built and will never be a fully
accessible and useable playground on the Commons for everyone. He is not
sure there will be a vehicle by which similar changes in the future can include
input to make sure they are fully accessible for everyone if the DAC is disbanded.
CC Liaison Brock responded that that was a good point. If the DAC had not
existed in its current format, there would not have been the ability to get that
representation to propose changes to the design of the playground structure that
are now being planned for it. She suggested that the DAC pursue, in anticipation
of the proposed consolidations of boards and committees, a designated seat on
the Board of Public Works and Planning and Development Board as a voting
member to make sure there is representation on behalf of members of the
community to insure that adequate accommodations for everyone are included in
all projects undertaken by the City of Ithaca or within the City of Ithaca.
Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes May 3, 2017
5
DAC Member Sember-Chase agreed with that comment, and added that in
addition to that lack of representation on the new commissions by the DAC that
the public won’t have an avenue to bring these types of issues to be addressed.
She further noted that no one person can represent all the special needs of
members of the community. There needs to be a way for that population to
consult with the “content experts” to provide input wherever needed.
CC Liaison Brock stated that she doesn’t see, in the proposed structure, how
concerns regarding accessibility issues can be brought forward to the City.
Vice Chair Scriber further noted that in the proposed structure of the new
commissions it doesn’t appear that any accommodations are included related to
seniors in the community. That population of the community will only grow as
baby-boomers are coming of that age; is there anywhere that there could be
representation from the Tompkins County Office for the Aging on a commission.
The City is saying that it wants to be a community for people to come to retire so
not including that demographic of the population under one the commissions will
become a problem in the future if it’s not considered now.
CC Liaison Brock suggested that the chair of the Working Group, Deb
Moholenhoff, and Chief of Staff Dan Cogan be invited to the next meeting of the
Disability Advisory Council to hear the concerns being expressed by members
today.
Chair Roberts responded that it seems to him that things are moving ahead
quickly as far as the work and recommendations from the Working Group are
concerned. The DAC wants to make sure that its voice is included as plans are
finalized.
DAC Member Sember-Chase supported Vice Chair Scriber’s point about
education being so important for each of the commissions about accessibility
accommodations and concerns of the DAC. The concerns expressed today by
members of the DAC are not just about egos; the members only want to help the
Working Group members to see that ultimately they could end up with more
problems in the community with the proposed new structure than is currently
being experienced by the City’s various boards and committees if all the issues
aren’t considered completely.
Chair Roberts stated that he would reach out to Ms. Mohlenhoff and Mr. Cogan
to see if it makes sense for some members of the DAC to meet with them before
the next meeting of the DAC or not, and let DAC members know.
He further stated that on another topic, he had asked DAC Member, Lisa
Monroe, to present, at a upcoming meeting of the DAC, the results of the “Aging
in Place Survey” conducted by Tompkins County Office for the Aging. He feels
that presentation will allow some of the concerns that have been raised about the
increase in the senior population of the city in the coming years to be heard, and
that information shared with the public in the form of a public record of the DAC
meeting minutes.
CC Liaison Brock stated that the DAC could ask the Working Group to be one of
the committees that is not disbanded; the Cable Access Oversight Committee
and a few others are going to continue; along with the four new commissions for
all the reasons mentioned.
DAC Member Sember-Chase suggested that one DAC member be placed on
each of the four new commissions to provide input on all the concerns mentioned
today.
Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes May 3, 2017
6
Chair Roberts agreed with CC Liaison Brock’s idea that the DAC should say how
important and separate the DAC is and as such should be pulled out on its own –
separate from the proposed four new commissions and see where it goes.
Personally, he feels that the monthly meetings of the DAC make efficient use of
its allotted time, quorum is not a problem (usually), and it has staff support. The
DAC is not ineffective in how it uses its resources; point in fact, today it just spent
45 minutes talking about issues that affect 20% of the population.
Chair Roberts stated that he would discuss with Ms. Mohlenhoff and Mr. Cogan
that the DAC would like to request that they not be disbanded and continue to
exist as a standing advisory group. In addition, if there could be a way to work
with the four new commissions that would be good as well. He agreed that so
much of what the City does should include this committee and its input since the
DAC is advisory to all levels of city government and operates with input from the
public about problems. The DAC acts to investigate, advise and come up with
procedures and recommendations to meet the needs of all individuals in the
community, and that is unique as compared to some other boards/committees. It
makes more sense to let them know that the DAC discussed the proposed
recommendations for a long time, the DAC should not be disbanded, and then
list the issues and reasons why. It is also important to note that because the DAC
is made of up of a very diverse group their personal and professional input
should be considered very valuable.
Sidewalk Project Discussion – Transportation Engineer Hathaway and
Sidewalk Program Manager Licitra
Transportation Engineer Hathaway explained that the City would be hosting a
public meeting/open house about a potential future improvement to University
Avenue between Linn and Lake Streets. That roadway is in poor condition, the
water main needs to be repaired, and there are a gamut of reasons to redo the
road; however, it will be very expensive.
The question before the DAC today is if the City rips up the road to make these
repairs, what else should be included in the project. There is information on the
City website about the project, the information will be e-mailed to DAC members
in order to provide an opportunity for feedback on the project. He is very
interested in any thoughts or ideas that the DAC may have that could improve
not only the road but the sidewalk in that stretch of road. He feels that it will be
valuable for DAC members to spend some time reviewing all the information on
the website; and more helpful than a paper drawing.
He explained that right now there is parking on both sides of the street. The
street is 9’ on the downhill side and 11’ on the uphill side, which is pretty tight.
Whatever options are chosen will have an impact to parking so decisions will
need to be made as to whether to keep parking on both sides of the street or just
on one side and if on one side, which side. There have been suggestions to
include a bike lane on both sides of the street or just the uphill lane. Should
sidewalks be kept the same as they are now; however, there may be some
reduction in parking along the cliff face due to the need to protect the utilities.
This street is very busy and is a heavily parked area of the City. One of the
questions to be answered would be if parking goes on only one side of the street,
is there available parking nearby. If the parking is removed on the uphill side,
would there be sufficient parking between University and Stewart Avenues for
parking and on the west side which could be designated as residential.
Chair Roberts asked whether the DAC was being asked to provide input on the
sidewalks for the project or the accessible parking.
Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes May 3, 2017
7
Transportation Engineer Hathaway responded that they are interested in having
input on what would be an appropriate sidewalk which will have impacts on
parking so that none of the parking on the East hill side would qualify for
designated accessible parking; however, on the South side at least one spot
could be designated accessible parking. The general rule of thumb is for every
three out of four blocks there needs to be at least one designated accessible
parking space. On this street, that spot will more likely be placed closer to curb
ramp at the top of the hill.
Transportation Engineer Hathaway stated that this project is not planned for
construction at this time because it’s going be about a $2.5 million project. In
order to fund the project the City will need to apply for some type of grant funding
or begin saving funds in the Department of Public Works budget for years to
come in order to undertake it.
CC Liaison Brock asked if Transportation Engineer Hathaway would speak briefly
about the proposed redesign of West State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street
(between Floral Avenue and Taughannock Blvd.) that will include improvements
to pedestrian accommodations as well as the redesign of the intersections by
Pete’s Grocery Store and Brindley Street. She feels that it would be good for the
DAC to provide input on the improvements being proposed.
DAC Member McElrath, Liaison to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council
(BPAC), reported that when BPAC discussed this project they were in support of
the barrier option.
CC Liaison stated that the deadline to submit feedback on this project has
passed so she encouraged DAC members provide any input as soon as
possible.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the overall support for the project due
to safety concerns for not only pedestrians, but vehicles and bicycles because of
the strange way the intersections are set up and the need to make the changes.
Transportation Engineer Hathaway explained that the Brindley Street Bridge will
be replaced with a new bridge at the re-aligned intersection that will cross over to
extend to Taughannock Blvd. The old Brindley Street Bridge will become a
bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists.
CC Liaison Brock encouraged DAC members to sign up through the City’s
website to the “Notify Me” option. It will allow you to pick and choose when you
want to receive an e-mail about city activities – such as meeting agendas,
construction notices, opportunities for input on proposed projects, public
meetings/open houses etc.
Sidewalk Program Manager Licitra reported that the contract for the upcoming
sidewalk construction season will be awarded soon. Vitale Construction was
awarded the contract to do the work and should begin work at end of June.
Public Outreach meetings are already being scheduled to provide an opportunity
for input on the 2018 sidewalk construction work plan. He encouraged DAC
members to provide input to him on what sidewalks they would like included in
the 2018 work plan.
DAC Member Sember-Chase left the meeting at 1:25 p.m.
CC Liaison Brock extended kudo's to Sidewalk Program Manager Licitra and
Transportation Engineer Hathaway for the funding they received to continue the
sidewalks up W est Hill and South Aurora Street in collaboration with the Town of
Ithaca.
Disability Advisory Council Meeting Minutes May 3, 2017
8
Adjournment:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
____________________________ __________________________
Sarah L. Myers, Larry Roberts,
Information Management Specialist Chair