Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2012-05-07BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. May 7, 2012 PRESENT: Mayor Myrick Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Darling, Morache, Leccese, Goldsmith, Acharya OTHERS PRESENT: Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin Common Council Liaison – Fleming Information Management Specialist - Myers Transportation Engineer – Logue EXCUSED: Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney DAC Liaison – Roberts ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: There were no additions to or deletions from the agenda. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Myrick announced that he would be attending an Economic Development meeting in Albany next Monday. He will be unable to attend the Board of Public Works Meeting. Vice Chair Jenkins will chair the meeting in his absence. COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD: Nathan Richardson, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding his trash tag violation appeal at 519 Willow Avenue to encourage them to consider waiving the fee. The Board responded and shared information that staff provided to them regarding the situation. After listening to the information/documentation that had been provided to the Board, he withdrew his appeal and stated that he would pay the fine. Garin Danner, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding the proposed resolution on the Board’s agenda today to approve the construction of new sidewalks on Cornell Street. He is an affected property owner and was concerned, after previous Board discussions on this topic, their approving the construction of new sidewalks even though the city’s sidewalk policy needs updating. There was discussion back and forth between the Board and Mr. Danner regarding why the City should proceed with the construction of new sidewalks on Cornell Street. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC: The Board responded to Mr. Danner comments, and provided information regarding their decision to move forward with approval of the construction of new sidewalks on Cornell Street. Mayor Myrick explained that Transportation Engineer Logue provided the Board with three options for proceeding with new sidewalk construction. He outlined them below: Option 1: Direct sidewalk installation under the existing Uniform Sidewalk Improvement Policy. The Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy is written in Charter sections 73 and 89. Section 73D specifically speaks to new sidewalk and gives the power to the Board of Public Works to direct new sidewalk installation after holding, a public hearing. The BPW must also decide who should build the sidewalk: City crews, the City's contractor, or by delegation to the property Owner. Section 73F then says that the cost, apportionment and assessment should be in accordance with section 89, "except that the entire cost thereof shall be deemed to benefit the adjoining owners." 2 May 7, 2012 If the BPW is prepared to follow this option, the first decision would be to direct the sidewalk construction by resolution; it should include environmental review. The second decision is to determine who must do the work. The Board may direct the Department of Public Works to build the sidewalk, may choose to hire a contractor to do the work or may direct the property owners to build the sidewalk. In any of these cases, it will make sense to ask Common Council to establish a capital project to account for all the costs and to cover them in the first instance. Also, there will be some costs that are not assessable according to the Charter, for example, the cost of curbing and drainage improvements. The Board may choose to give the property owners a certain amount of time to get quotes for the work and then compare those quotes with cost estimates prepared by the City. Otherwise, based on conversations with the Street Supervisor, Cliff Murphy, DPW would be prepared to install curbing and drainage this fall. The sidewalk might be installed this fall, but if not, it could be built in the spring of 2013. The question of what cost gets assessed to the property owners is a question that is then determined after the work is complete. There may be some small discretion for the Board, but the basic premise is that the property owners pay the costs to place and finish the Sidewalk. The City covers the costs of "preparing the way," so to speak, insofar as the City pays they cost of curbing, drainage, replacing a traffic signal loop, relocating; traffic signs, etc. The property owner pays for the labor, equipment and materials for the sidewalk regardless of who does the work. If the City does the work, staff would prepare a statement of costs for the BPW, who would hold a public hearing and affirm the statement before filing it with Common Council, who would then approve it. It does seem that there is some latitude for Common Council to work out payment plans in accordance with Charter section 89(F). Option 2: Do not direct sidewalk installation under the existing policy. If the Board does not think that the benefits outweigh the costs, or, for any other reason, it may choose to not order the sidewalk construction. This seems to be a fairly straightforward option, so no further discussion is included. The BPW could instruct staff to pursue a grant, but presumably this could only be used to defray the City's costs, not to relieve property owners from their responsibility. Option. 3: Table discussion on the two blocks under consideration (Cornell Street/Hancock Street) and work toward changing the Uniform Sidewalk improvement policy. If the Board wants to direct the sidewalk construction, but does not feel that the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy is fair, another option would be to put aside the specific considerations of new sidewalk on Cornell and Hancock Streets and instead to pursue a change to the Charter to explicitly give the City the ability to apportion costs in other ways. In discussion with the City Attorney, it seems that this change would not require a public referendum, but could be accomplished by Common Council. If the Board is interested in this option, staff can prepare a more detailed process for a Charter amendment. One point I would like to make is that it would likely be very important to differentiate between the policies related to existing sidewalk maintenance and those related to new sidewalk construction. In some ways they are similar, but in many ways they are different. Assessing costs for sidewalk repairs and new sidewalk construction need not follow the methodology. I believe there are a number of good reasons to treat them separately and perhaps differently. One question the Board may want to consider is what should be the proposed apportionment of assessment. Should the City pay 100% of all new sidewalk construction? Should it differentiate between residential and commercial properties? For example, the cost of new curbing is split 50/50 with adjoining property owners in all but R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Though the BPW has directed new sidewalk in two commercial areas somewhat recently, there has been almost no new sidewalk ordered 3 May 7, 2012 in residential areas in the past 20 years based on a review of BPW minutes. Should property owners continue to pay some portion of the new sidewalk costs, but with a not to exceed amount? There are a number of variations that can be considered in order to reduce the burden on adjoining property owners. If the Board wants to pursue this option, staff would appreciate some direction, but can also put together a recommendation, if requested. We can then work with you on a specific recommendation to Common Council for a charter change. There may be a concern that if new sidewalk was "free" to the adjoining owners, that the City would then face an onslaught of requests for new sidewalk or that the general fund would have to pick up expenses that non-taxable properties could have been assessed. There may be some advantage to retaining some responsibility of cost for the adjoining owner so that this responsibility helps balance the desire for new sidewalk. Also, keeping new sidewalk construction separate from responsibilities for sidewalk once built would help with this balance. Either way, even if the City was to pay for new sidewalk in the first instance, it would still be decision of the BPW to direct the sidewalk contingent on Common Council approving the funding; petitions from neighbors would not obligate the City to construct and pay for new sidewalks. The Board agreed to go ahead with construction of the new sidewalk on Cornell Street. They also agreed that the city’s sidewalk policy needs to be changed, but did not want to wait for the policy change to construct the new sidewalk. Mayor Myrick stated that he did not support the Board’s decision to move forward because he wanted to see the policy changed first. Discussion followed on the floor regarding obtaining quotes for the work, possible financing through the city, the city’s portion of cost related to construction of curbing, and the quality of work that is required. REPORTS: Common Council: CC Liaison Fleming reported that last week Common Council voted on the three surplus properties that BPW recommended for sale; they did not approve the sale of the Elmira Road property. There was concern about the property being used for a parking lot and concerns related to poor storm water management. Mayor Myrick reported that Common Council did declare itself as lead agent in the sale of the property on Cherry Street. Commissioner Goldsmith questioned whether Common Council was made aware that the BPW had similar concerns regarding storm water management, and staff did not feel there was a problem so BPW recommended it for sale. Commissioner Acharya questioned what the City will do about the presumed drainage issues. He noted that even a parking lot on the property would provide tax revenue to the City. Mayor Myrick responded that there are other city surplus properties that will be coming to the Board of Public Works for review and recommendation to Common Council; it is possible that the Elmira Road property could be added to that list in the future. Planning and Development Board: Planning and Development Board Liaison Acharya reported that the Board is very busy reviewing many upcoming projects, which will help the city’s tax base. They did discuss briefly the Cherry Street property and Common Council’s intent to be lead agent. He noted that there is an inhabitability issue concerning the property that will need to be addressed. He reported that they also discussed a project on Taber Street, and that Planning Board members feel that any new project has to come with sidewalks. Fire Chief Parsons raised concern regarding pedestrian safety on the Taber Street bridge since it is a one lane bridge and the addition of sidewalks would make it dangerous for pedestrians. He stated that the Board of Public Works would be asked to provide a 4 May 7, 2012 recommendation regarding this project. He also reported that the Planning and Development Board has only seen a sketch plan at this point for the Johnson Boatyard residential project. The sketch can be reviewed at the city’s planning department. Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council: BPAC Liaison Morache reported that BPAC had their first official meeting last week, and provided the following update: Official requests: • Better communication with police department regarding bike/pedestrian accidents. Specific sub-committee will be working with Police on this issue. • That Supt. Gray follow up with State DOT to request bike lanes be striped on Green and Seneca. • That Mayor, Council, BZA and Planning Board support development projects that reduce car dependence, limit car traffic, and thus support bike/pedestrian safety. • That a number of bike lanes be put in place on certain streets where this can easily be done. A list will be included in the Minutes from May. Included on this list was Ithaca Road, so BPAC wishes to thank BPW for its support in creating this bike climbing lane. Discussed: • Bulb-outs at Green and Seneca: Currently the bulb-outs are designed to allow (2) 12' travel lanes between curbs, leaving no room for passing of a bike on the right side, nor for a future bike lane. Board voted to formally request that the proposed bulb-outs along the right lane of both streets, be shortened by 3', allowing a 15' wide right travel lane. In the future, when the city acquires the streets, this would allow the striping of a 5' bike lane and (2) 11' travel lanes. • Ghost Bike: A resolution was passed recommending that BPW keep the Ghost Bike in place, since it is not inside the park, does not block pedestrian or vehicle passage, is supported by many in the neighborhood and serves as a traffic calming device. In the resolution, the board also adopted this particular ghost bike, and will perform regular maintenance such as painting etc. • Cascadilla and Cayuga: BPAC is generally in support of a 4 way stop and other traffic calming measures at this intersection. A discussion of the long-standing problems for bikes, pedestrians AND drivers concluded that something needs to be done to address confusion, distraction and safety issues, despite the recent incident there. Staff Reports: Supt. Gray reported that there is a lot of construction taking place right now in the city making it very difficult to get around. There are many private, State, and local projects occurring simultaneously causing congestion and traffic delays in many parts of the city. He reported that the State would begin repaving Green and Seneca Streets at the end of this week. The Clinton Street bridge was closed on April 30th and staff is working closely with Ithaca Police Department to accommodate their needs. He further reported that the city will be undertaking a retaining wall inventory, both private and publicly owned. The information, which will include the current condition of the wall, will be put into the city’s GIS system so that a map can be created. Water and Sewer crews completed sewer repairs on Cascadilla Park Road. The lines were hard to access, and plans are being made for longer term repairs for the entire system in that area. He further reported that city staff and vehicles will be seen in other local municipalities assisting with water service work because the city has certain tools and/or equipment that other municipalities need for their occasional jobs. In return, the City is able to borrow equipment from them as needed. 5 May 7, 2012 Asst. Supt. Benjamin reported that staff has been receiving a lot of feedback regarding yard waste billing. Crews are working on planting trees, and continuing work on the Tea Pavilion at Stewart Park. He also reported that staff is coming in at 4:00 a.m. to power wash and clean the parking garages. Discussion followed on the floor regarding whether or not the Board of Public Works succeeded with increasing revenues in parking garages; as well as improvements in the operation and administration of the garages. The Board reminded staff that when rates were set in December that they wanted a report back in the Spring on the revenue from parking garages. They requested that information and a discussion be placed on an agenda in the near future. Supt. Gray stated that the May 14, 2012 Board of Public Works meeting would be devoted entirely to the topic of the Water Treatment Plant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the April 9, 2012 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes – Resolution By Commissioner Acharya: Seconded by Commissioner Morache RESOLVED, That the minutes of the April 9, 2012 Board of Public Works meeting be approved as published. Carried Unanimously VOTING ITEMS: BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT: Award of Contract for Professional Services for Ithaca Youth Bureau Roof Replacement – Resolution By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Darling WHEREAS, proposals were solicited for professional engineering and design services for the Ithaca Youth Bureau Roof Replacement, and WHEREAS, staff recommends award of contract for professional services to Kingsbury Architecture LLC of Ithaca for a not-to-exceed fee of $9,190.00; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby awards the contract for Professional Services for Ithaca Youth Bureau Roof Replacement to Kingsbury Architecture LLC of Ithaca, NY for their not-to-exceed fee for services of $9,190.00, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute this contract, and that the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to administer the same. Carried Unanimously HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS: A Proposed Resolution to Declare Lead Agency Status for the Environmental Review of New Sidewalk Construction along a portion Cornell Street. By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Acharya WHEREAS, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR), Section 176 of the City Code, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, SEQR and CEQR both provide for an uncoordinated review for “Unlisted” projects that involve more than one agency, and WHEREAS, the proposed construction of new sidewalk along the west side of Cornell Street, between E. State St. and Eastwood Ave., is an “Unlisted” action under SEQR and is an “Unlisted” action under CEQR; now, therefore, be it 6 May 7, 2012 RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed construction of said sidewalk. Carried Unanimously Environmental Review for an Action to Direct New Sidewalk Construction along the West Side of Cornell Street, between E. State St. and Eastwood Avenue - Resolution By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Morache WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has declared itself to be the lead agency for the environmental review for a project (“the Project”) entitled “New Sidewalk Construction along Cornell Street” in accordance with Section 176 of the Ithaca City Code (CEQR) and in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (SEQR), and WHEREAS, the Project involves constructing approximately 300 linear feet of 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk in the City right-of-way along Cornell St. between E. State St. and Eastwood Ave. (along 10 Cornell Street, ‘Tompkins County Alley’, and 1120 E. State St.) in accordance with the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement section of the City Charter, and WHEREAS, the Project is an Unlisted action according to CEQR and an Unlisted Action according to SEQR, and WHEREAS, a Short Environmental Assessment form was prepared by staff for CEQR and for SEQR, and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2012, the Board of Public Works declared itself lead agency for an uncoordinated environmental review for CEQR/SEQR, and WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council has received a copy of the CEQR/SEQR short forms and a set of plans for the project, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works, acting as lead agency, has, on May 7, 2012, reviewed and accepted as complete Short Environmental Assessment Forms Part I and Part II prepared by staff, and Project plans prepared by staff; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works determines that the project to construct the aforementioned new sidewalk along Cornell St. will result in no significant negative environmental impact and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Section 176 of the City Code be filed in accordance with the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Carried Unanimously A Resolution to Direct Sidewalk Construction along Cornell Street with the Intent to Assess a Portion of the Cost through the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Morache WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received recommendation from the Transportation Engineer to direct sidewalk construction along the west side of Cornell Street, between E. State St. and Eastwood Ave., and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received a plan and a cost estimate for the project, and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2012, the Board held a duly advertised public hearing in accordance with Section C-73 of the City Charter, and WHEREAS, costs associated with this project can be apportioned to the abutting three property owners under the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy in accordance with Sections C-73 and C-89 of the City Charter; now, therefore be it 7 May 7, 2012 RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves and adopts the plan prepared by the Office of the City Engineer and the standard specifications for said sidewalk, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs that sidewalks be constructed by City forces along the west side of Cornell Street, between E. State St. and Eastwood Ave., in accordance with Uniform Sidewalk Improvement sections of the City Charter, pursuant to plans and specifications prepared by the Office of the City Engineer, and under the direction of the Superintendent of Public Works, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby requests that Common Council establish a capital project in the amount of $50,000 to cover the costs of this sidewalk construction, with the understanding that approximately $15,000 to $20,000 of that total will be assessed to the adjoining property owners after construction is complete and in accordance with the terms for apportionment and assessment as set forth in the City Charter. Commissioner Acharya stated that he agrees with Commissioner Goldsmith that there needs to be a sidewalk on Cornell Street. However, he dislikes the current sidewalk policy and feels that it is unfair. He noted that it is very important for the City of Ithaca to move forward with the construction of new sidewalk since it has been named as the number one walkable City in the nation according to the latest census; however, the policy needs to be updated as quickly as possible. Commissioner Goldsmith suggested amending the resolution to include a provision for the property owner to hire a private contractor to do the work – by a certain deadline. Mayor Myrick stated that he is conflicted on this issue. He noted that the current city policy prevents the construction of new sidewalks. However, neighbors have lobbied for a long time for sidewalks to be constructed on Cornell Street – which is unusual. They have expressed concern as well regarding the cost to the adjacent property owners. He would prefer a policy that would get sidewalks constructed faster and in a more efficient manner. He stated that he plans to vote against this resolution because he believes that the city’s sidewalk policy needs to be changed first. A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows: Ayes (6) Morache, Leccese, Acharya, Jenkins, Goldsmith, Darling Nays (1) Mayor Myrick Abstentions (0) Carried Transportation Engineer Logue stated that he would work to place this item on the May City Administration Committee agenda so that it can then go to Common Council for approval at their June meeting. He further noted that the proposal to construct new sidewalk on Hancock Street would be coming back to the Board for consideration in the near future. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Public Safety at the Cayuga/Cascadilla Street Intersection: Supt. Gray explained that he would like to hear more about what the Board members have in mind when they talk about the intersection safety and possible use of stop signs. He stated that staff seems interested in a general discussion but he is having a hard time assigning the task or responding to the recent accident as a motivation for changes. The recent accident happened at a stop sign, was the product of an inexperienced driver, and will not be changed by adding anything at that location. The only other accident that he is familiar with there was a drunk driver running the same stop sign and running into the bridge rail. If the customers of the coffee shop (at the corner North Cayuga Street and Cascadilla Street) are at risk because of their location adjacent to an intersection, the risk is far smaller than the diners adjacent to the intersection of East State Street/Martin Luther King Jr. Street and Aurora Street, and it is fully signalized. 8 May 7, 2012 Transportation Engineer Logue stated that the traffic count for this intersection is not enough to warrant the placement of stops signs at each intersection at this location. He is not sure if there is a study of the car/pedestrian accidents at this intersection. He explained that there must be five car/pedestrian incidents a year to trigger the need for stop signs. Discussion followed on the floor regarding this dangerous and unusual intersection, traffic speed, and the options for improving safety. Some suggestions were to paint lines on the street as a bike parking area that would visually make motorists slow their speed because it would appear to narrow the road, the need for the police department to enforce the speed limit routinely, what traffic calming measures might work well here, and costs. Transportation Engineer Logue stated that it was very useful to hear the various concerns raised by Board members. He stated that he would be happy to develop some possible alternatives to improving safety of the intersection – if the Board were to direct him to do so – which they did. Commissioner Acharya stated that he would very much like to see a long term re-design of this intersection, which he sees as a public square of sorts. Commissioner Morache volunteered to work with Transportation Engineer Logue to develop alternative solutions to recommend to the Board for consideration in the near future. Supt. Gray reminded the Board that any proposed solution will most likely have ongoing maintenance needs and costs associated with it, and that the City is facing its worst budget year ever for 2013. Commissioner Acharya suggested that there might be interest from the public in donating time or funds for traffic calming solutions at this intersection. Recommendation to Approve Solar Liberty Lease Program: Supt. Gray explained to the Board that he still needs to become familiar with the Solar Liberty Lease Program. It is his understanding that a private party can enter into such leases because they can gain the advantage of tax credits and depreciation schedules that do not apply to a public entity. The City would receive a reduction in electrical costs and a reduction to our green house gas emissions which helps it make progress to meet its future goals. This seems like a fairly modest proposal which helps introduce the technology and various approaches to providing and utilizing it. The following information was provided to the Board from Energy Sustainability Project Manager, Dennise Belmaker, regarding the program: In November 2011, the City of Ithaca (along with other local governments, businesses and organizations) was approached by Solar Liberty with an offer to install solar PV (photovoltaic) systems on City buildings, through a solar lease financing structure. The initial offer was reviewed in the months that followed by the relevant City departments and staff, including the Attorney's, Controller's, and Engineering departments. As a result of that process, the following information provides a recommendation for the Board of Public Works to approve the implementation of this project on one or two selected buildings. Solar Liberty, Inc. has been installing solar systems since 2005 and it launched its new "Solar Liberty Lease Program" about one year ago. Through this program, a solar PV system of 25 kW would be installed in one or more City buildings and leased to the City for a 15 year term, for a fixed monthly lease fee. The City then benefits from the electricity production of the system (with no up-front municipal expense), thus reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to demonstrating its commitment to support renewable energy sources. Yearly cost savings are guaranteed as part of the program. 9 May 7, 2012 Included in the program are the following services: site plans of what the proposed system will look like, structural analysis by a third party engineer and drawings (stamped), interconnection with the utility company, installation, maintenance of the system for the life of the lease, and all paperwork involved. Two buildings have been selected and qualified for implementation of this project: The Central Fire Station and Ithaca Youth Bureau building. Following is a short description of the selection criteria and specific proposal considerations: The main requirements of the program are that "the client" (in this case the City) owns the building (or has a long term lease), and has a minimum electricity usage of 5.000 kWh per hour. Additional considerations include the structural condition/stability of the building and the electric utility rates paid. Solar Liberty then looks at the building through satellite imagery to make sure the roof is large enough to house the system – if the roof isn’t able to fit the system, a ground mounted system might be considered. Buildings are qualified (or disqualified) depending on location, size, and electric usage. Once a building is qualified, the company uses 30 years of average sunlight data, along with the tilt and orientation of the system, to estimate what that specific system will produce. The production of the system, combined with the building's current electric rate, will determine the system's savings on an annual basis. An analysis performed by Taitem Engineering - as part of a "Renewables & Technical Services" contract - shows that the City would have significantly higher costs and payback period if installing such systems on its own. Based on this information, she would recommend approving and implementing this lease program in at least one of the selected buildings, giving priority to Central Fire Station, for which greater savings are expected. The Board discussed this topic briefly and requested that the City Controller and City Attorney review the information and provide a recommendation before they consider approving anything at this point. One concern raised was what if the company was to go bankrupt during the term of the lease. Mayor Myrick stated that he would ask the City Attorney to research that question as the lease does assume an ongoing business. Appeal of Recycling Violation for 201 Highland Avenue: The Board discussed and reviewed the background information that was provided regarding what staff found and how they handled the situation; and the property owner’s appeal information. Motion to Deny Appeal of Recycling Violation at 201 Highland Avenue – Resolution By Commissioner Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner Goldsmith RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works denies the appeal of the recycling violation at 201 Highland Avenue. Carried Unanimously Appeal of Trash Tag Violation for 519 Willow Avenue: Property owner, Nathan Richardson, attended the meeting to address the Board during the public speaking portion of the meeting. The Board shared information that staff provided to them regarding the violation. Mr. Richardson withdrew his appeal and stated that he would pay the fine. ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Svante L. Myrick Information Management Specialist Mayor