HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1990-03-281
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 7:30 P.M. March 28, 1990
PRESENT:
Mayor Nichols
Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Daley, Golder, Hoffman, Peterson,
Blanchard, Schroeder, Johnson, Romanowski,
Cummings
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Guttman
City Clerk - Paolangeli
Police Chief - McEwen
City Controller - Cafferillo
City Engineer - Gray
Superintendent of Public Works - Thadani
Director of Planning and Development - Van Cort
City Judge - Sherman
.� Community Development Administrator - Evans
w� Board of Public Works Commissioners - Reeves, Connor, Berg
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Nichols led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
American flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Hudson Street Project
Alderperson Blanchard, Liaison to the Board of Public Works, read
the following resolution that was adopted by the Board on March
28, 1990, with a 4 -2 vote:
(600,11 "WHEREAS, this Board of Public Works has listened to the concerns
of the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood about the
plans for the reconstruction of Hudson Street, and
WHEREAS, this Board is committed to the maintenance of streets
within the City of Ithaca that provide safety for vehicular
traffic and pedestrians while maintaining to the maximum extent
possible the historic and residential character of neighborhoods,
and
WHEREAS, this Board has come to the conclusion that the best
interests of the City and neighborhood would be served by making
additions and changes to the current construction, traffic
control, and street tree plans, and
WHEREAS, the addition and changes listed below can be made
without subjecting the City to liability for a road
reconstruction that does not meet standards of safety, without
significant economic costs to the City, and without the risk that
the project will not be completed this year; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, That staff is directed to make provisions for the
following policies, changes and additions:
1. The maximum number of trees shall be saved;
2. Every attempt shall be made to preserve the life of those
trees that suffer damage during the reconstruction;
3. A tree planting program be instituted at the first possible
planting season;
4. The areas between the sidewalks and curbs shall be
maintained as grass;
38(►
-2 March 28, 1990
5. The shall be the minimal possible taking of private
property;
6. There shall be a STOP sign installed near the top of the
hill at the entrance to the City;
7. There shall be an all -way STOP sign at the intersection of
Hudson and Columbia Streets;
8. The YIELD sign at the intersection of Hudson and Aurora
Streets shall be replaced by a STOP sign;
9. The design of the curves shall have the minimum radius
within the constraint of safety requirements;
10. The width of the street between Hillview Place and the City
line shall be a 27 foot design, and
11. The width of the street between Columbia Street and Hillview
Place shall provide a transition to a 27 foot width design;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That in the future planning and design of major
projects, such as the Elm Street Reconstruction, the early
participation of the public will be sought in deciding the
options to be considered as well as in the on -going process of
choosing among specific design alternatives."
Mayor Nichols asked if there was anyone
from the public who
wished to address Council on the matter
of the Hudson Street
Project.
Mr. John Swartz, 510 Hudson
Street, addressed
Council and read a
petition that was signed by
approximately
100 residents of the
neighborhood and adjoining
neighborhoods
and presented the
petition to the City Clerk
for filing. The petition reads as
follows:
"We, the undersigned residents of Hudson Street and its immediate
neighborhood, are concerned for the safety of all residents and
especially for the safety of children attending schools in our
neighborhood. The current threat to our safety is from traffic
speeding on Hudson Street. We are concerned that a Hudson Street
"improvement" project that provides a wider, straighter, and
smoother road will encourage more speeding and thus increase
rather than decrease this threat. We are also concerned that the
"improvement" project will destroy the residential character and
environment of our neighborhood.
Thus we petition you to consider the following:
1. That the city proceed with its reconstruction of Hudson
Street, limited to the necessary and reasonable elements of
replacing the street's foundation and utility structures,
correcting curve embankments, and adding four way stop signs
at several points along the street;
2. That the city refrain from widening or straightening the
street from Aurora Street to Coddington Road;
3. That the city take steps to insure that, for current and
future municipal construction projects, citizens who are
affected by such projects will be given the opportunity to
be full participants in the entire planning and decision -
making process."
3�'1l
3
March 28, 1990
The following persons spoke to Council on the Hudson Street
Project:
Jim Houghton
Don Hinman
Don Miller
Walt Amey
Yaro Nelson
Guy Gerard
- 111 Hudson Street
- 135 Hudson Street
- 635 Hudson Street
- 212 Hudson Street
- Representing Ithaca
- 140 College Avenue
Bicycle Coalition
Mayor Nichols, for clarification, stated that the project in its
present form is the project that was approved by the Board of
Public Works today.
In December we recommended a negative declaration based on the
information we received at the time. We were made aware of only
limited neighborhood controversy. As you know, the CAC must
evaluate a number of factors when considering a project. Safety,
neighborhood character and air pollution are three that have
particular relevance to this project.
Although we were unenthusiastic about the proposal we felt that
given the information that we had at the time, a negative
declaration was justified. We did, however, have a number of
concerns which we stated in our review. It now appears that the
neighborhood is united in its opposition to the plan and that
safety improvements could be achieved by less drastic measures
such as STOP signs, traffic lights and improved banking of the
road.
Furthermore, mature trees, in addition to their obvious aesthetic
advantages are significantly more effective in reducing noise and
air pollution than are small ones and should be conserved
wherever possible.
The engineers have expressed their concern with providing for
efficient flow of traffic into the City. However, the CAC feels
that the City's first obligation is to its neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods know best what is good for them and we are
confident that the City will respect the neighborhoods while
articulating concerns by revising the plan."
Hudson Street Reconstruction Project Amendments
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
WHEREAS, the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood have
petitioned for certain changes to the Hudson Street
Reconstruction Project as currently designed by John S. MacNeil
Engineers, and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of Ithaca to preserve and
enhance the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods,
while maintaining our infrastructure consistent with reasonable
safety standards; now, therefore, be it
City
Engineer Gray explained some of the
technicalities of the
project to the public and the Council and
responded to questions.
Mr.
Eric Broberg, member of the Conservation Advisory Council,
the
read
the following statement from Betsey Darlington, Chair of
CAC:
"The
Conservation Advisory Council urges
Common Council to work
with
the residents of the Hudson Street
neighborhood to revise
the
plans for that street in ways that
are acceptable to the
neighborhood.
We also urge greater enforcement of the
speed limit, not only
here
but in other areas of the City where
speeding is a problem.
In December we recommended a negative declaration based on the
information we received at the time. We were made aware of only
limited neighborhood controversy. As you know, the CAC must
evaluate a number of factors when considering a project. Safety,
neighborhood character and air pollution are three that have
particular relevance to this project.
Although we were unenthusiastic about the proposal we felt that
given the information that we had at the time, a negative
declaration was justified. We did, however, have a number of
concerns which we stated in our review. It now appears that the
neighborhood is united in its opposition to the plan and that
safety improvements could be achieved by less drastic measures
such as STOP signs, traffic lights and improved banking of the
road.
Furthermore, mature trees, in addition to their obvious aesthetic
advantages are significantly more effective in reducing noise and
air pollution than are small ones and should be conserved
wherever possible.
The engineers have expressed their concern with providing for
efficient flow of traffic into the City. However, the CAC feels
that the City's first obligation is to its neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods know best what is good for them and we are
confident that the City will respect the neighborhoods while
articulating concerns by revising the plan."
Hudson Street Reconstruction Project Amendments
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
WHEREAS, the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood have
petitioned for certain changes to the Hudson Street
Reconstruction Project as currently designed by John S. MacNeil
Engineers, and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of Ithaca to preserve and
enhance the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods,
while maintaining our infrastructure consistent with reasonable
safety standards; now, therefore, be it
-388
4
March 28, 1990
RESOLVED, That the following changes to the Hudson Street
Reconstruction Project be made:
1. WIDTH. The width for paving shall be narrowed from 30 feet
to the approximate current width for the entire project
length, from Aurora Street to the Coddington Road.
2. TREES. a) Tree removal shall be kept to 2 -5, as indicated
on the March 23, 1990 Department of Public Works proposal.
b) Earth disruption around remaining tree roots shall be
done carefully, by hand if necessary. Appropriate
protective fertilizing and pruning shall be done.
Supervision will be provided by the city forester and Shade
Tree Committee. c) A minimum of 38 additional trees shall
be planted, including an allee from the Therm drive to the
City line.
3. CURB LAWN. No pavers of brick, or any other material, shall
be used between the curb and the sidewalk. Curb lawns shall
be grass.
4. CURVES. The radius of the Therm curve shall be limited to
the minimum legal standard. The current designs for the
curves at Giles and the school are acceptable to the
majority of residents.
5. STOP SIGNS. Stop signs shall be installed immediately in
three locations: on Hudson at Aurora; a 4 -way on Hudson at
Columbia; and at the top on Hudson where it will be deemed
most effective, either at the Coddington Road or Therm
Road /Hudson Place intersections, or below the Therm curve.
6. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. The city invites the South Hill
Civic Association to form a working subcommittee to meet on
a regularly scheduled basis with representatives from the
DPW, the BPW, and the 2nd Ward Alderpersons to provide
oversight for the duration of the Hudson Street
Reconstruction Project.
Alderperson Schroeder offered the following amendment to the
resolution:
RESOLVED, That a further Resolved clause be added to read as
follows: RESOLVED, That in the future planning and design of
major projects, such as the Elm Street Reconstruction, the early
participation of the public will be sought in deciding the
options to be considered as well as in the on -going process of
choosing among specific design alternatives.
No objection was made by the Council and the amendment was
accepted.
Alderperson Golder offered the following amendment to the
resolution:
RESOLVED, That a final Resolved clause be added to read as
follows: RESOLVED, That appropriate steps be taken to designate
Hudson Street as a bicycle route.
Discussion followed on the floor. No objection was made by the
Council and the amendment was accepted.
Alderperson Cummings stated that at the Board of Public Works
meeting today, staff indicated concern about safety standards on
the street and the city's liability. She said that the three
accident areas are being addressed by the project. The accidents
at Giles Street are being addressed by the re- design of the Giles
curves. The accidents at the intersection of Aurora are being
addressed by the installation of a STOP sign there. The mid -
block accidents would be affected by the re- design of the Giles
`r ""l
10( %
5 March 28, 1990
curves. Alderperson Cummings emphasized that she does not
believe the City to be remiss in designing for appropriate safety
standards.
Superintendent of Public Works Thadani spoke to Council regarding
the reasons for the project. He stated that the primary goal of
the project was to create a much safer situation on Hudson
Street. The City recognizes that there is a dangerous condition
on Hudson Street; it is incumbent upon the City, as we are going
(400" into reconstruction of the street, to consider improving the
safety. Unfortunately, with the parking lanes that exist on the
lower part of Hudson Street, that means widening of the street.
There is simply not enough space to park a car and for two other
cars to pass one another. The margin of safety is extremely
limited. It would be very difficult for the Department of Public
Works staff to endorse a project that did not address that
situation because all they would be doing would be endorsing an
unsafe situation.
�d1 Superintendent Thadani said that if the Council is saying that
S { i the project ought to be done in the format that is before them,
the Council is for all practical purposes telling him to cancel
the project and in that case the City will have to assume the
fiscal liabilities that go with that decision.
Superintendent Thadani stressed to the Council that if they are
telling him that they want the department to proceed with the
project when the Council has been told, in his opinion, that the
project is not safe, then he does not believe the department,
the Superintendent nor the City Engineer can stand behind a
project of that type. They would not want to compromise their
professional integrity, their degrees, their licenses, to go
ahead with a project of that nature and he would certainly
(Mwov hesitate from signing off on this new set of drawings with the
type of plans that the Council is suggesting tonight.
Discussion followed on the floor with City Engineer Gray and the
Superintendent of Public Works answering questions from Council
members.
Questions were asked of City Attorney Guttman regarding the
liability of the City if the project were built the way the
resolution so states at this time.
City Attorney Guttman stated that if the Council wished to
discuss the City's liabilities, he would prefer to do so in
executive session.
Further discussion followed on the floor with Supt. Thadani and
City Engineer Gray responding to questions from several
Alderpersons.
Executive Session
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder
RESOLVED, That the Common Council move into Executive Session to
discuss the City's liability regarding the proposed Hudson Street
(,woe, Reconstruction Project.
Carried Unanimously
The Common Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:30 p.m.
and reconvened into Regular Session at 9:55 p.m.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
RESOLVED, That in No. 1) WIDTH - the wording shall be as follows:
The width for paving shall be changed to the approximate width
of the existing road from Prospect Street to the Coddington Road
and that an Item No. 7 be added to read as follows: The block
from Aurora Street to Prospect Street be left at a 30 foot width
but the realignment be re- designed to reduce the taking from the
6 March 28, 1990
downhill side and to solicit input from the residents of the 100
block in that re- design.
Discussion followed on the amending resolution. City Engineer
Gray answered questions from Council members.
A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Hoffman, Johnson, Schroeder, Daley, Cummings,
Golder, Peterson
Nays (3) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard
Carried
Discussion continued on the Main Motion as Amended with the
Alderpersons stating their reasons for supporting or not
supporting the resolution.
Mayor Nichols stated, for the record, that it is his opinion that
the Council, in voting for this resolution, is taking a real
gamble. He said that it is not a gamble that he would take and
he does not think it is one that the Council should be taking in
the best interests of the people of the City. The whole City has
to bear this cost. Mayor Nichols stated that he is certain that
the Council will get a very positive reaction from the people in
this audience and he will not be gaining any favor by saying this
but he thinks the Council is making a big mistake at this stage
of the game, in terms of the cost and the potential problems that
we may have with this project.
Main Motion as Amended
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Daley, Peterson,
Hoffman, Schroeder
Nays (3) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard
Carried
Recess
The Council recessed at 10:45 p.m. and reconvened at 11:00 p.m.
Alderperson Peterson left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
City Court Facilities
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Court is currently housed on the fourth
floor of the Hall of Justice building, located at 120 East
Clinton Street in Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 825 of the Laws of 1987,
Representatives of the State Office of Court Administration have
identified various deficiencies in the existing City Court
Facilities, and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Chapter 825, the City of Ithaca
adopted a Court Facility Plan on August 3, 1989, outlining a
proposed project schedule, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to further direction of the Office of Court
Administration, the City has been directed to designate the
proposed site and location of such facility no later than March
31 of 1990; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby
proposes in concept the construction of a new City Court Facility
of approximately 6,000 square feet, to be located on East Clinton
Street, across from the Hall of Justice, subject to all environ-
mental and site planning considerations.
19
lr�
IDS) i
7 March 28, 1990
Mayor Nichols read the following excerpt from a letter from City
Judge Sherman:
"Therefore, the site location most suitable to the Court would be
site 2, as proposed in the study, the construction of a new
facility on the lot across from East Clinton Street from the Hall
of Justice. While some security problems are presented by
separation from the remaining Police Station, these problems can
be minimized by a connection between the two buildings as
suggested in the study or some type of traffic control device to
ensure safe and secure police crossing of East Clinton Street."
Mayor Nichols stated that at the March 28, 1990 meeting of the
Board of Public Works, the Commissioners endorsed the site on
East Clinton Street. They included the recommendation that
there be an underground connection between the two buildings.
Alderperson Booth stated that as this resolution comes to the
c� Council from the Budget and Administration Committee, this is an
approval in concept only and it does not include endorsement of
�) either a tunnel or a bridge across East Clinton Street. It does
�) not foreclose that issue but does not endorse it as part of the
concept. The Budget and Administration Committee, with the
assistance of the Superintendent, concluded that the building of
a new facility was significantly superior to either of the other
two alternatives. He said that the Council is not bound to this
site if they find factors that in fact determine that this site
is not advisable to go forward with.
Alderperson Cummings stated that one of the other possibilities
examined in the study was the construction of a totally new
building on the Park property as opposed to the City property.
She asked if the problem with that possible site was that the
(WO10" City does not own the land.
Alderperson Booth stated that the City certainly has the power of
eminent domain if we wished to pursue it and he does not think
any of those things are foreclosed. However, we have a deadline
we have to meet and the resolution we are voting on is a
reasonable way to meet it.
Alderperson Cummings stated that she would like to be on record
as, indicating some interest in not discarding this site (the Park
site) .
Further discussion followed on the floor on alternate sites.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) - Cummings, Schroeder, Daley, Booth, Blanchard,
Romanowski, Johnson, Hoffman, Golder
Absent (1) - Peterson
Carried
Community Development Grant - Exception from HUD Conflict of
Interest Rules
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
(600-.1 WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Common Council of
the City of Ithaca that a conflict of interest, as HUD defines
it, exists because of the relationship between Alderman Dan
Hoffman, a member of this Council, and the Eddy Street
Cooperative Market (the Market), an applicant for a $10,000 loan
from the Community Development Small Cities Economic Development
Grant; and
WHEREAS, the Citizens Advisory Committee, after a full hearing on
the matter, has, by unanimous resolution of March 6, 1990,
requested that the Common Council seek an exception to HUD's
conflict of interest rules so that the Market may be included in
the economic development portion of the Small Cities grant
application; and
9
8 March 28, 1990
WHEREAS, the Common Council is fully aware of the nature of the
relationship between Alderman Hoffman and the Market, which
consists of: 1) Alderman Hoffman's membership until February,
1990, as an unpaid member of the Board of Directors of the
Market; 2) Alderman Hoffman's position as a maker of a $1,000
personal loan repaid in full on March 28, 1990; and 3) Alderman
Hoffman's position as a co- signer of a $15,000 loan for the
Market from the Alternatives Federal Credit Union; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council respects the findings of the Citizens
Advisory Committee that: a) the Market's proposal is the kind of
economic development proposal which is appropriate for a Small
Cities Comprehensive Application in that it provides vital
neighborhood services to a lower income neighborhood, creates
jobs for low and moderate income residents of Ithaca's target
areas and brings commercial space up to health and safety
standards as required by Building and Housing Codes, and b)
Alderman Hoffman's unique knowledge and experience in cooperative
food retailing over an 18 -year period will not only assist the
Market in its management and growth, but also assure the City
that the below - market rate loan it may make will result in more
competence on the part of the Market to repay the loan in the
future; and
WHEREAS, Alderman Hoffman has agreed to recuse himself from
participation in and voting on the Community Development Grant
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Staff Attorney has ruled that the conflict
involved here would not be a violation of any local or state
laws; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs the Mayor to send a
letter to HUD with a certified copy of this Resolution requesting
that HUD grant an exception to its conflict of interest rules for
the application of the Eddy Street Co -op Market.
Alderperson Hoffman read for the record the following statement:
"I was one of the people involved in organizing the Eddy Street
Co -op in the Fall of 1988. In November I was asked to join the
initial Board of Directors because of my experience in food
cooperatives. I served on that Board of the non - profit
corporation, without compensation, until the middle of February
of this year when I resigned.
In March of 1989 the Board made an effort to secure a fifteen
thousand dollar loan from the Alternative Federal Credit Union
and the Credit Union asked that in addition to signing as a
Corporation, that at least one member of the Board co -sign as an
individual. Two members decided to do that; I was one of them.
That loan is for four years. It is secured by the equipment and
the inventory of the co -op. The repayment began in May of 1989
and is continuing at this point.
In addition, I made a personal loan of one thousand dollars to
the co -op in March of 1989. I would like to state for the record
that today I received full repayment of that loan. I will
circulate the release that I signed and a copy of the check."
Alderperson Hoffman stated that he also wished to make it clear
that at no point has he encouraged the Board or the Co -op to
apply for the Community Development loan and he does not intend
to take part further in the discussion and he intends to abstain
from any votes on this application as long as it contains this
component.
Discussion followed on the floor with Community Development
Administrator Evans answering questions from the Council.
9 March 28, 1990
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Cummings, Daley, Schroeder, Golder, Blanchard,
Romanowski, Johnson
Nay (1) - Booth
Abstention (1) - Hoffman
Absent (1) - Peterson
Carried
Adi ournment
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Callista F. Paolangell Benj min Nichols
City Clerk Mayor
�l
�t_�i