Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2010-05-26BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. May 26, 2010 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Brock, Goldsmith, Tripp, Wykstra OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Acting Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Zumoff DAC Liaison – Roberts Information Management Specialist - Myers Asst. Fire Chief – Parsons Sr. Planner – Nicholas Director of Planning and Development - Cornish PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA Mayor Peterson suggested the removal of item 8.6A “Board Minutes – Discussion” as the Board had a discussion on minutes at the May 19, 2010 meeting. No Board member objected. ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor’s Communication/Board of Public Works Special Committee - Discussion Mayor Peterson provided the Board with information on the special committee which is actually a working group, review of the Board of Public Works Charter and Regulations. She explained that she would be making appointments to the committee within the next few weeks. She explained that the committee’s charge is to understand the history of the Board of Public Works in Ithaca, to research how other New York cities handle public works-related decision making, to study the legality of such authority of the Board in contrast to the constitutional governing authority of Common Council, to examine overlapping authority with Common Council, and to recommend changes of the Charter to Common Council and the Board of Public Works. She further explained that her expectation is that this committee would provide recommendations to her by November 1. She stated that the committee would meet at least twice a month with assignments in between. The committee make up, as appointed by the Mayor, would include: the Mayor, two Board members, two Common Council members, appointed staff (i.e. clerk, attorney, superintendent), and possibly experienced community members. Commissioner Wykstra expressed his interest in serving on this committee. There was discussion on the purpose of this committee, which the Mayor explained is not a charter review committee, because its purpose is to examine only part of the charter. The committee will recommend changes of the Charter to Common Council and the Board of Public Works. Commissioner Tripp stated that she was not interested in serving on the committee. City Attorney Hoffman explained that use of a charter commission is one option available to the City to review parts of the charter. The other is the so-called legislative approach where Common Council, in using its typical procedures, considers a change to a part of the charter. The City has done that on numerous occasions; it has had charter commissions on a few occasions. His reading of the applicable laws and guidelines is that Common Council can use either one of those methods. Commissioner Brock expressed her disagreement with the Mayor’s description of the special committee and its role in making recommendations to the Board and Common Council. Board of Public Works – May 26, 2010- Page 2 Mayor Peterson reiterated that she is not appointing a Charter Review Committee. She explained that a Charter Review Committee makes decisions, it has a quorum, it has rules; and the elected body has no input on any of the committee’s recommendations and, they don’t vote on any recommendations. The recommendations from the Charter Review Committee go directly to the voters without going through the elected body. This is a special committee that will review the Board of Public Works Charter and Regulations. This is an ad-hoc working, review group that will not be making decisions. The committee will only be providing recommendations for proposed changes to that specific part of the charter. COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD Asst. Fire Chief Parsons addressed the Board regarding the safety fences/barriers on both City-owned and Cornell bridges on the Cornell Campus. He explained that the Fire Department is not hampered by the barriers in anyway when responding to emergencies. He explained that emergency personnel efforts will not be at risk or more difficult with or without the barriers. He stated that it is a complicated decision whether or not to keep the barriers in place. He went on to explain the recent incident involving one of the bridges and the rescue of a person on the other side of the barriers. He further stated that whatever type of barrier or determination is made it will never be 100% effective; barriers do reduce the number of suicides but they do not eliminate them. Discussion followed on the floor regarding suicide attempts on and off campuses nationwide. The recent suicides on Cornell campus have drawn a lot of media attention nationwide because they took place on public property; suicides that take place on private property do not draw so much attention. Jennifer Streid-Mullen, Executive Director of Suicide Prevention and Crisis Service of Tompkins County (SPCS), addressed the Board in support of keeping barriers in place on the bridges on campus. She stated that there is evidence to indicate that barriers/fences do deter suicides. She also referred to a resolution in support of the barriers/fences that the SPCS Board recently passed and was distributed to the Board for their information. Information was also distributed on studies that have been conducted which show the positive effect of barriers on bridges in decreasing the number of suicides. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC DAC Liaison Roberts expressed his strong support for the City to continue its work with Cornell University on their request for an extension of the fences/barriers on the bridges on campus. He explained personal experiences with suicide and stated that by keeping the barriers in place the City and Cornell University can help to reduce the number of impulsive suicides off the bridges. He noted that someone who wants to commit suicide will still find a way, but if the impulse to do so off bridges is impeded in someway, it would help. He explained the role of media in people’s decisions to commit suicide as well. He hopes that this discussion of ways to help people in need can be broadened into the community. He further stated that if a friend of his had been so impeded by a barrier on a bridge, he might not have committed suicide and would still be here today. He further noted that the effect of suicides, from bridges, on first responders must be horrible; as well as the effect on schools, the community, family and friends. He urged the City staff and Cornell representatives to work together to find a way to keep some sort of barrier in place on the bridges. BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT Recommendation for Acceptance of the Revised Shopping Cart Ordinance – Resolution This item was not discussed. WATER AND SEWER Protest of Sewer Repair for 246 Floral Avenue – Resolution This item was not discussed. Board of Public Works – May 26, 2010- Page 3 Appeal of Water Service Repair Invoice for 525 West Buffalo Street – Resolution By Commissioner Brock: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra WHEREAS, on Monday, October 19, 2009, City Water & Sewer personnel located a suspected water main leak surfacing in Buffalo Street. The water leak was excavated on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, and was found to be a leaking water service for 525 West Buffalo Street, and WHEREAS, because of the badly deteriorated condition of the leaking steel water service, repair was not feasible and the entire water service from the water main to the curb was replaced, and WHEREAS, in accordance with City Code Chapter 384 Water and Sewers, Article II, §348-17 F, a bill was prepared and sent to the property owner on December 31, 2009, and WHEREAS, upon review of the bill at the request of the owner, it was noted that the usual cold patch asphalt “Stock It” had not been used since Streets & Facilities was available and made the final hot asphalt surface fix. The Working Supervisor recorded the hot mix as cold mix and $153.00 was incorrectly billed as a result, and WHEREAS, 3-CY (5.4-T) of topsoil was billed based on estimates for final spring site restoration of the area around the new curb box set in the tree lawn. The Working Supervisor recorded the estimated topsoil, as is customary, and $105.30 was billed to cover the spring replacement of 3-CY topsoil, and WHEREAS, the property owner has requested that the topsoil not be placed or billed, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the charges for both the “Stock It” (cold mix asphalt) and the topsoil be removed from the bill, reducing the bill by a total of $258.30, making the total due on invoice #11552 the current sum of $1,232.61. Property owners, Robert Lofthouse and Michelle Berry, joined the Board for the discussion of this item. They explained their concerns regarding prior notification to property owners, inconsistencies in the city code; due process, and the public’s need for an accurate city code to refer to for guidance in these instances. Supt. Gray stated that improvements in process and the City code do need to be made. He further stated that property owners need education and information about their responsibilities for maintenance and repair of water and sewer services as well. A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows: Ayes (4) Wykstra, Goldsmith, Jenkins, Brock Nays (0) Abstentions (2) Peterson, Tripp Carried CREEKS, BRIDGES, AND PARKS Dredging of Barge Canal & Flood Control Channel and BPW Recommendation of Upland Disposal Site – Discussion Director of Planning and Development Cornish and Sr. Planner Nicholas joined the Board for discussion of this item. The following draft resolution was provided to help with the discussion and was referred to in discussions. Board of Public Works – May 26, 2010- Page 4 Draft Resolution for BPW Regarding Selection of a Preferred Site for the Location of a Sediment Management Facility. WHEREAS, on June 9, 2006, Common Council authorized the filing of an application for funds from the New York State Department of State Environmental Protection Fund’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program in accordance with the provisions of Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1993 in an amount not to exceed $133,178.00, or 50% of the original estimated project costs for the Planning and Design phases of the project to dredge the lower reaches of Cayuga Inlet, the Flood Control Channel , Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, and Six Mile Creek, and WHEREAS, in fall 2006 the City was awarded the grant funds, and WHEREAS, in January 2007 the City, issued a Request for Proposals for the project and selected Ecologic L.L.C. (lead) with ERM (subcontractor), and, WHEREAS, the Board understands (Brief synopsis of responsibilities of the agencies) WHEREAS, (Synopsis of project progress to date) WHEREAS, on March 31, 2010, at a joint meeting Common Council and the Board of Public Works, it was decided by mutual agreement that the Board of Public Works would undertake the task of selecting a preferred site, and that at the completion of this process, would submit their recommendation for a preferred site to Common Council for final approval, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has completed an analysis of the potential sites which has included review of the Draft Site Reconnaissance Report, site visits to the former southwest park and to the sediment management facility in Montour Falls, and discussions with city staff and consultants, and WHEREAS, members of the Board understand that selection of the preferred alternative allows the next phase of the project to commence. This phase will include environmental review (likely an Environmental Impact Statement) of the preferred alternative as well as design, permitting and construction of the facility. Clarification regarding legal, financial, schedule, management, and other arrangements between the City and NYSDEC (and, to a lesser extent NYS Canal Corporation) will also be part of the next phase, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public works does herby recommend to Common Council (xxxxx) as the preferred alternative for the location of a Sediment Management Facility, and be it further RESOLVED, That if the involved agencies, with cooperation from the City, cannot resolve any potential issues on the site, or if any issues arise during the course of the next phase of the project that cannot be resolved, a reevaluation of the other upland sites will be necessary. Commissioner Brock proposed the following substitute Whereas clause that would replace the last Whereas clause in the above draft resolution to provide a stated rationale for the BPW's decision: “WHEREAS, members of the Board have taken into consideration the following criterion when deciding on a recommended preferred alternative for the City's Sediment Management Facility: adequate acreage to service the expected annual dredging of approximately 80,000 to 150,000 cubic yards for the period of 4 to 6 years, as well as future maintenance dredging needs; accessibility and proximity of the site to the Cayuga Inlet, Flood Control Channel and City creeks; City ownership of land; technical and feasibility in regards to acquiring permits and approvals, and acceptability to the public, now therefore be it “ Mayor Peterson expressed concern about language in the proposed whereas clause that refers to a period of four to six years as it conflicts with other plans for that site. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the length of time a site would be needed and what variables might affect the time period. Board of Public Works – May 26, 2010- Page 5 After Board discussion, the language was pared down to: “WHEREAS, members of the Board have taken into consideration the following criterion when deciding on a recommended preferred alternative for the City's Sediment Management Facility: adequate acreage to service the initial dredging event, as well as future long term maintenance dredging needs; accessibility and proximity of the site to the Cayuga Inlet, Flood Control Channel and City creeks; City ownership of land; technical feasibility and feasibility in regards to acquiring permits and approvals, and acceptability to the public, now therefore be it" Senior Planner Nicholas stated that she would work to develop a synopsis of the discussion and the concerns that were raised into a resolution that the Board could vote on at the June 9, 2010 meeting. Commissioner Wykstra requested that the word “choice” be used in the title of the resolution rather than the word “recommendation.” He stated that the Board would fulfill its responsibility to make a choice for a preferred site and Common Council can either support the Board’s choice or make its own determination on a site. Safety Fencing on Bridges – Discussion Supt. Gray explained that representatives from Cornell appeared before the Planning & Economic Development Committee on May 19th to request an extension of the period for fencing beyond current agreement of June 4, 2010. The Mayor asked the representatives to brief the Board on their request for an extension. The following representatives from Cornell University joined the Board for discussion of this item: Susan Murphy, Vice President Student and Academic Services and Gilbert Delgado, University Architect. Ms. Murphy thanked Mayor Peterson for her decisive and brave action in March to allow Cornell University to install the barriers on the bridges. She reported to the Board that after the last suicide on March 12th, suicide clusters and suicide contagions became topics of concern and discussion for staff at Cornell and the City of Ithaca. She stated that staff at Cornell University believes the barriers were effective in preventing further suicides since March. She explained that the Cornel University would like to request an extension of eight to ten weeks for the barriers to remain in place in order to work with the City to determine a long-term plan. She stated that Mayor Peterson would only allow the extension with support from Common Council. She further stated that research shows that barriers do help prevent suicides and referred to back-up material distributed to the Board which shows examples of the success of barriers on bridges in preventing impulsive suicides. She stated that Cornell agrees that the chain link fences currently in place are not a viable, long-term option, and noted that any long term barrier would take time and involve appropriate discussions and approvals. She explained that Ithaca risks becoming a destination for suicides and that Cornell and the City do want to discourage that, but that with the world wide internet Ithaca is known as a destination to come to commit suicide. She noted that if the City were to approve their request for an extension of the barriers on the bridges beyond June 4th that Cornell would work to do the following, including but not limited to: developing and designing appropriate permanent barriers where it has been determined they are necessary and following appropriate approval procedures. Commissioners Tripp and Goldsmith supported the time extension of the temporary fences and to work with Cornell in the development of permanent barriers. Commissioner Brock expressed concern at the implementation of permanent suicide barriers and would like the City and community to work with Cornell in addressing the suicide prevention strategies overall. She further stated that the City and Cornell should evaluate and improve the general safety of all the City's bridge banisters so as to reduce one's ability to climb over them. Commissioner Wykstra supported extending the time period for the temporary fences and would like to work with Cornell to come up with a solution which keeps in mind the life giving aspects of our bridges and gorges. Mayor Peterson expressed desire to maintain and preserve the beauty and inspiration of our natural areas in this process. Ms. Murphy expressed Cornell's interest in working with the City to discuss Cornell's Board of Public Works – May 26, 2010- Page 6 overall suicide prevention strategies, to develop appropriate barriers, to work to design permanent barriers where it has been determined they are necessary and to follow appropriate approval processes. Supt. Gray requested that Ms. Murphy provide pictures of "before" and "after" as additional information for the Board and Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the January 20, 2010, March 3, 2010, April 14, 2010 and May 12, 2010, Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes – Resolution By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Goldsmith RESOLVED, That the minutes of the January 20, 2010, March 3, 2010, April 14, 2010, and May 12, 2010 Board of Public Works meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor