HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2012-07-09BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. July 9, 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
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Fleming
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Transportation Engineer – Logue
City Chamberlain – Parsons
Civil Engineer - West
EXCUSED:
DAC Liaison – Roberts
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Supt. Gray requested the addition of item 9.6 entitled “102 The Knoll – Sidewalk
Construction” – Discussion.
No Board Member objected.
MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Mayor had no communications.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD
No one appeared to address the Board.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC
The Board had no response since there were no comments from the public.
REPORTS
Staff Reports:
Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that crews have been busy responding to very high
demands for water and sewer service work. Crews are also busy checking old valves
throughout the city and replacing as needed. He worked with staff to develop the
narrative for the 2013 Capital Budget requests.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin reported that crews continue to work on the Ithaca Road project.
Curb work is being done at Bryant Park, next will be sidewalk replacement, and the
fence there will also be replaced. He also reported on the second phase of hydrilla
treatment which will start Wednesday, July 11th and go through the end of October. The
inlet will not need to be closed during the treatment.
Supt. Gray noted that capital project work continues. He submitted the first draft of the
department’s 2013 budget, showing what a 10% cut in personnel lines would look like.
Final department budgets are due August 1st. He noted that further discussion with the
Board on the proposed budget submission will occur in the near future. He further
reported that renovations on the small tea pavilion at Stewart Park are almost complete,
that electrical work needs to be completed before finishing of the interior can occur.
2
July 9, 2012
VOTING ITEMS
PARKING AND TRAFFIC:
Residential Parking Permit Hardship Consideration for 512 and 516 Dryden Road
–Resolution
By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works (BPW) has promulgated regulations (adopted
June 9, 2004) for implementation of the Residential Parking Permit System, which was
established by Common Council on May 6, 1998 after an act of the New York State
Legislature, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 260-4 of the City Code and in accordance with
the BPW regulations, the BPW may grant hardship requests, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received a written petition for a hardship
request from the current owners of a single family home at 516 Dryden Road, and 512
Dryden Road faces the same hardship, and
WHEREAS, the 500 block of Dryden Road is currently in the Residential Parking Permit
System; however, the properties in question are in a R-3 Zoning District and are thus
not allowed to purchase permits, and
WHEREAS, the properties at 512 and 516 Dryden Road are single-family buildings, and
WHEREAS, Engineering staff do not have an objection to granting the requests, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works recognizes that the hardships are not self-
imposed but rather results from the property on Dryden Road being included in the R-3
Zone for multi-family residential buildings despite being a single family residential
properties, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves the hardship request for
512 and 516 Dryden Road, allowing the residents of said properties to purchase permits
for Residential Parking Permit System block otherwise in accordance with the above-
mentioned regulations, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the hardship allowance shall continue to be in effect as long as the
properties continue to be either a single family dwelling or a duplex, but shall be
extinguished should the properties be redeveloped into more intense land uses.
Carried Unanimously
DISCUSSION ITEMS AND VOTING ITEMS:
Appeal of Unbilled Trash Service Bill for Autumn Leaves Used Books -
Discussion
Supt. Gray explained that Mr. Wetmore, owner of Autumn Leaves, is appealing a bill he
received for three years’ worth of trash service, which was not billed as it should have
been on a routine basis. He further explained the history of how these types of bills get
missed by the city’s billing system and are billed – sometimes years later. He stated that
the City provided the services and had expenses related to them. He noted that the
Board of Public Works has gone back up to 6 or more years to bill for various items.
City Chamberlain Parsons explained that when the Green Street Garage closed for
repairs, the City set up a system to bill business owners using the dumpster. The City’s
current billing system works well for taxes, water bills, and miscellaneous bills; it does
not handle recurring bills of this type well. The system ended up skipping months, the
computer determined, in some cases, that it did not feel it had been long enough
between bills so it skipped that cycle. The City of Ithaca paid for trash removal services
so it felt that it was obligated to go back and bill those owners who had not received bills
monthly as they should have. She further noted that the City will also be attempting to
collect from businesses which may no longer be on The Commons.
3
July 9, 2012
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the need to collect the money due to the city
for services it provided, whether an automatic billing program can be set up – that will
work- for this type of service, and the number of appeals the Board might expect to
review in the coming weeks.
Mayor Myrick stated that he would like the City to accept payment for six months from
the property owner only because it was a billing problem of the City. This is not the kind
of service the City wants to be providing to its residents.
Further discussion followed on whether Board members might feel differently if the
amount of this bill were larger, the fact that the City had a legitimate expense for a
service it provided and that the City should be doing its best to collect the money it is
owed during these difficult financial times.
Mayor Myrick explained the strict principles that the City should follow, that the City has
an obligation to protect private tax payers, and provide a regular type of billing service to
them.
Commissioner Acharya stated that he was leaning towards supporting the Mayor’s
proposal to collect payment for the last six bills only. He hopes the Board’s decision will
spur the City to make sure things are in place so this does not happen in the future.
Appeal of Unbilled Trash Service Bill for Autumn Leaves Used Books - Resolution
By Commissioner Morache: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
RESOLVED, That based upon the appeal of the property owner and the Board’s
discussion above, the Board of Public Works recommends payment by the property
owner for the last six months, as a fair compromise, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain is directed to adjust the bill dated April 17, 2012
based upon the Board’s decision and forward the amended bill to the property owner for
payment.
Ayes (6) Mayor Myrick, Jenkins, Darling, Morache, Lecesse, Acharya
Nays (1) Goldsmith
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Appeal of Water Bill for Nate’s Floral Estates - Discussion
Supt. Gray explained to the Board that the owner of Nate’s Floral Estates is requesting
that an interest penalty that was charged to her water and sewer bill in May 2012 due to
a late payment be waived because she was in the hospital and overlooked the bill.
Commissioner Goldsmith noted, that in reviewing the billing statement for water and
sewer to see its billing history for Nates Floral Estates, there have been a series of
adjustments and reductions made in obligations to pay the City. He stated that some of
them have been very substantial.
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded that the master meter system for water and sewer at
Nates Floral Estates is separate from the City and has frequent breaks, so the City
expunges the sewer portion of their bills.
Supt. Gray stated that the amount for this appeal is unusual and larger than previous
ones. The City has a long standing relationship with the owners who have worked with
the City in the past on problems, and granted the city right-of-way for work with no
access fee, legal documents, etc. so the City has benefitted both financially and time
wise from the amicable relationship. He would not ask for the bill to be expunged but
would ask that the payment of interest be expunged.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the billing history of the property, with it being
noted that many adjustments have been made through the past few years by the City.
4
July 9, 2012
The Board recommended that the request for the late payment waiver be denied.
Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 601 West Green Street - Discussion
Supt. Gray explained to the Board that Brian Grout, owner of the property, through his
attorney, Mark Wheeler, is appealing the sidewalk assessment that was applied to his
taxes in 2011.
Property owner, Brian Grout, and his attorney, Mark Wheeler, joined the Board for
discussion of the appeal.
Mr. Wheeler provided explanation of Mr. Grout’s appeal as follows:
“Mr. Grout received a city tax bill which included an assessment for sidewalk repairs.
These charges are disputed on the ground that the damages to the sidewalks were
caused by the City (City tree(s) damaged sidewalk). In accordance with the City’s
sidewalk policy, Mr. Grout is not responsible for these charges and, consequently, the
tax bills should be adjusted and Mr. Grout’s account credited accordingly.
Mr. Grout twice protested, in writing, the City’s claim that he was responsible for these
repairs. He first notified the city in writing on October 27, 2007 about the damaged
sidewalk and again on December 4, 2008. He sought to meet at site to discuss any
claimed damage necessitating repair, and to be advised as to the City’s plans. The City
never responded to those requests.
Mr. Grout, therefore, requests cancellation of the repair charges, interest, mark-ups, and
penalties.”
Mr. Wheeler provided the following timeline/summary leading up to Mr. Grout’s appeal:
Timeline/Summary of Events - Brian Grout, 601 West Green Street
10/27/2007
Letter from Grout to City advised City that sidewalks were unsafe due to damage
caused by City trees and asked for an inspection and time frame for repairs
8/12/2008
Sidewalk Notice of Defect: City advised Grout of tree damaged and other damaged
sidewalk
12/4/2008
Letter from Mark Wheeler: Advised City that damages were caused by City trees and
requested removal of those trees causing the damage; requested that the City contact
him to schedule a re-inspection
3/27/09
Form letter: City advising Mr. Grout no repairs yet made and change in law
6/17/09
Sidewalk Notice of Defect: From City - Same as prior notice
7/23/10
City sends $2,936.51 Invoice (Without further notice, City imposes $587.30 surcharge)
City repairs sidewalk and issues bill
10/8/10
City sends account statement: Balance due: $2,995.24, including penalty
1/1/11
City Re-levied on tax bill
4/8/11
City issued account statement with additional penalty imposed
5
July 9, 2012
4/19/12
Mark Wheeler: Sends City letter appeal. Requests adjustment to sidewalk charges and
penalties
Commissioner Goldsmith explained that it is not City policy, as alleged, to pay for city
tree damage to sidewalks; although sometimes it is done.
Mr. Grout explained that he sent the City a letter about the sidewalks in question,
expressing his concern about their condition as a result of city tree damage. He wanted
to set up a meeting with staff to inspect the sidewalks so that a decision could be made
as to how to proceed with repairing the sidewalks so that they were safe for
pedestrians, and to determine how costs for repair might be determined. He received no
response from the City to his two requests to set up a meeting with staff to inspect the
noted sidewalks. He further explained that, to date, no appointment has been set up
with him to meet with staff to inspect the sidewalks. He explained that the City came in
and replaced the sidewalk, unbeknownst to him, and then sent a bill to him for the work.
Mr. Wheeler stated that some sections of the sidewalk in question that were replaced
did not need repair. If Mr. Grout had received a response from the City an agreement
could have been reached regarding a fair allocation of the costs. He further stated that
Mr. Grout would like to discuss with the City whether the City tree(s) should be removed
since it will only continue to cause defects in the sidewalk as time goes on requiring the
sidewalk to be replaced/repaired more often on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Grout noted that it has been one and one-half years since the sidewalk was
replaced and it is already showing damage being caused by the tree(s).
Mayor Myrick stated that the letter Mr. Grout received from the City indicates three ways
to appeal: 1. Mr. Grout is not the property owner, 2. The sidewalk is not defective or,
the extent of the defect is not as described 3. The sidewalk defect occurred as a result
of the action(s) of the City – he wondered where the line of distinction has been drawn
in the past?
Commissioner Jenkins stated that property owners cannot cut the City trees down. The
City should repair/replace sections of sidewalk damaged by city trees.
Supt. Gray responded that the underlying problem is that the City does not want to cut
down trees, plus some property owners want the trees. He further noted that it has
been an informal practice of the City, since there is no written policy, that the City will re-
pair sidewalks that are damaged by city trees. In the early 1990’s the city’s sidewalk
crew was eliminated, and as a result staff and the city worked according to the law that
made it the property owners’ responsibility to repair or replace sidewalks damaged by
city trees. It is confusing since there is no written policy, and the law states one thing.
Commissioner Morache noted that there is no written policy; however, the City sends a
letter to the property owner that indicates the City will take care of it. Isn’t that a
contract?
Commissioner Goldsmith explained that he and Commissioner Morache, as a
subcommittee of the Board, have been trying to develop a new sidewalk policy for the
City. He noted that private costs for sidewalk repair/replacement are pretty close in price
to the City’s cost. They are trying to determine how much tree damaged sidewalk a
property owner is responsible for. It’s a huge issue that has to be dealt with, because
there is a backlog of appeals.
Commissioner Acharya noted that the Board faces a dilemma in the City’s policy. Mr.
Grout notified the City of the damaged sidewalk – if he hadn’t no one would have
inspected it. Since he was a conscientious property owner shouldn’t the City do more on
his behalf?
6
July 9, 2012
Mayor Myrick proposed that the City issue a refund of 17% to Mr. Grout and waive the
interest, which does not include the penalty.
Supt. Gray explained that the valid point here is that the concept of the 25% is that it is
going to take a lot of staff time out of the Engineering office. They’re going to have to go
meet with the homeowner, they’re going to have to go through this, they’re going to
have to give the homeowner an opportunity to say “I object”, and then they are going to
have to explain to them why. He stated that the Board got an indication here that the
City didn’t really earn the 25% in this instance. Normally, he would argue that that is the
cost because it is in the city charter; but he thinks there was an honest effort from the
property owner here to have that dialog and they didn’t get it. So, I think as a matter of
resolving this, and giving the City the incentive to do better, it would be reasonable to
say that we didn’t earn it and we shouldn’t get paid for it. So, what he is hearing is that
Mr. Grout started the discussion a long time ago, it’s been in protest for that period of
time, and the City is not entitled to the penalties. The adjustment would be about 47
square feet or 17% - Commissioner Goldsmith stated he came up with 17.6%. Supt.
Gray stated that the City would also, in this case, exclude the 25% surcharge.
Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 601 West Green Street - Resolution
By Commissioner Acharya: Seconded by Commissioner Goldsmith
RESOLVED, That based on the facts as noted above, as well as the discussion of the
Board of Public Works today, that the property owner be billed for 17.6% of the cost for
the sidewalk repair/replacement work, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the cost of the penalties and the surcharge be waived as well, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain is hereby directed to amend the bill for the
sidewalk work and mail it to the property owner for payment.
Carried Unanimously
102 The Knoll Sidewalk – Discussion
Annette Marshall, architect, and Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer joined the Board
for the discussion of this topic.
Transportation Engineer Logue explained that a parking lot is being reconstructed for a
fraternity on Barton Place, and there is a proposal to construct a sidewalk from the
parking lot that would connect to 102 The Knoll. The project is currently in the site plan
review process. The City’s former forestry expert said that construction of a sidewalk
here would damage city trees, and the Planning and Development Board accepted that
and removed the requirement of new sidewalks from the initial plan. The Engineering
Office reviewed the project, and felt that a sidewalk could be constructed without hurting
any city trees. Ms. Marshall is here to get direction as to how the architectural plans for
the project should be developed. The City’s current forestry expert, Jeanne Grace, was
consulted and she felt that a creative solution could be found that would protect the
trees as well as allow for the construction of a new sidewalk.
Commissioner Acharya, who is also the BPW Liaison to the Planning Board, said that if
there is a way to incorporate sidewalks into the project without damaging trees the
Planning Board would support it. The Board has not finalized site plan review either.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the plan to construct a sidewalk and protect
the trees from damage during the construction.
The Board expressed their support for the recommendation to install sidewalk as per
guidelines of City Forester, Jeanne Grace.
7
July 9, 2012
Traffic Calming for the Cascadilla Street/Cayuga Street Intersection – Discussion
Transportation Engineer Logue explained that in the context of the proposed budget for
2013, and the fact that the City does not have much money for this type of project, he
would like to make a few suggestions. He explained that he needs to complete a traffic
study of the area to determine whether an all-way stop sign would work at this
intersection. He noted that stop signs would address some concerns, would improve
safety, but he does not think of it as traffic calming.
Supt. Gray stated that he would object to having a four way stop sign at an intersection
in between two other intersections controlled by traffic signals as drivers might not see
the signs. He further stated that if the stop signs are warranted it should either be all
traffic lights or all stop signs at intersections on Cayuga Street. He and Transportation
Engineer Logue will discuss this further.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the need to do something at this intersection
to improve safety, and eliminate some of the confusion it causes to pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motorists.
Repair of Cobblestone Portion of Ferris Place - Discussion
Supt. Gray explained that Council Liaison Donna Fleming asked for a short
conversation regarding the possible repair of the cobblestone portion of Ferris Place.
The section of Ferris Place consisting of cobblestone is listed in a resolution from 2000
passed by Common Council that names it as a historical section of the City, and the
need for the retention of historic stone sidewalks, and streets. Because this section of
the street is historical, it will be very difficult to replace the cobblestone without finding
the funds to purchase the very expensive stones to do so.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin stated that he obtained estimates for the replacement of the
sandstone pavement, and it will cost $8.00 per square foot or approximately $38,000 for
this portion of the street (this does not include labor or related costs – it’s just for the
material). He also noted that it is a slow process to repave the street with new
sandstone, and that few, if any, of the current cobblestones would be able to be reused.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding whether or not the City could get a waiver
from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to repave the street with asphalt.
It was also noted that the street is being heavily used by construction vehicles currently
working on the Collegetown Terrace project, and whether or not Mr. Novarr would be
willing to share the costs for repaving the street. The street might become a major
thoroughfare to and from the residences of the Collegetown Terrace project so that
might be another incentive for Mr. Novarr to contribute to its repair.
The Board requested that Asst. Supt. Benjamin obtain cost estimates for the repaving of
the street with either sandstone or asphalt and bring that information back to the Board
for their information and consideration at a near future meeting.
BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT:
Award of Contract for Seneca Street Parking Garage Priority 1 Repairs Project –
Capital Project 372 – Resolution
By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, inspection of the Seneca Street Parking Garage revealed defects to slabs
and beams which require repair in order to permit continued use of the garage for
parking, and
WHEREAS, bids were received on July 9, 2012, for Seneca Street Parking Garage –
Priority 1 Repairs, and
WHEREAS, the 2012 General Fund Budget includes capital funds for repairs to the
Seneca Garage, and
WHEREAS, Crane-Hogan Structural Systems, of 3001 Brockport Rd., Spencerport, NY,
submitted the lowest qualified proposal of $637,140.00, now therefore be it
8
July 9, 2012
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby awards the contract
for Seneca Street Parking Garage – Priority 1 Repairs to Crane-Hogan Structural
Systems, for $637,140.00, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works be authorized to enter into and
administer this contract.
Carried Unanimously
NEW BUSINESS:
Sidewalk Policy:
Commissioner Goldsmith stated that the City really needs to get to the bottom of the
problems with the current sidewalk program and take care of them, as it is
embarrassing to have cases such as the one today come before the Board.
A brief discussion followed on the floor regarding the inequity with the current sidewalk
program, and the need to look at different ways of funding the maintenance of them –
such as through use fees or property taxes.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Svante L. Myrick
Information Management Specialist Mayor