HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2006-05-10
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. May 10, 2006
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Romanoff, Chapman, Schlather, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Deputy City Controller - Andrew
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Executive Assistant – Grunder
EXCUSED:
Commissioner Dotson
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Superintendent Gray requested the addition of item 6.3 – A report and resolution
associated with emergency repairs to GIAC. He further requested the addition of item
7B – which will be a Power to Act on Phase I of the Elmira Road Sidewalk Work. He
also would like item 8A which is a possible resolution with Power to Act on Operational
Issues.
No Board member objected.
MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Peterson stated that she will communicate throughout the meeting especially
relating to GIAC and also on sidewalks; which she would like to talk about when the
Board gets to that point.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Dan Krall, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board on behalf of the Parks Commission of
which he is a member. He stated that the Parks Commission spoke to a couple of
people this week including Superintendent Gray and it seemed appropriate that they
have been doing quite a bit as a group of commissioners and they felt that they hadn’t
really done a very good job of creating a liaison with the Board of Public Works since
many of the things they talk about or discuss are appropriate for this Board’s
consideration. He further stated that what they thought, if it seems appropriate to the
Board, that someone and he just happens to be the one this time, they met yesterday,
but Margaret Hobbie is the chair of the Commission. Someone will come every two or
three months, whatever seems appropriate, just to let the Board know what is being
discussed at their commission meetings so that the Board realizes that something is
happening and so when they give the Board something really nasty to work with, the
Board will know where it came from. He stated that there are a couple of hot items that
the commission is discussing. Their last two meetings have focused on the issue of the
dog park, it’s really been a hot item, they have had large groups, both yesterday and a
month ago, about twenty to twenty-five people. The majority being basically supporters
of the intention at this point of rescinding the leash only law for the Festival Lands.
Yesterday, they were told again, it was just as part of the conversation that there is
some negotiation underway with the State Parks and the Commission doesn’t know
where or what level, but they are asking us to maybe rescind that so it will give them
some leverage with the State Parks. The Commission has likewise had people very
adamantly opposed to this, they think it should only be for leashed dogs down there, so
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 2
that is one of the problems the Commission is having. If people are interested, they
have established a meeting for the Parks Commission and anyone in the public that
wants to speak on Thursday, May 18, 2006, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. It’s not even
going to be in this venue, they are calling it a public conversation so people can really
sit around and speak at length about that. He stated that the meeting would either be
here in Chambers or in the Second Floor conference room at City Hall. He stated that
JoAnn Cornish and Margaret Hobbie are setting that up. They thought that people that
couldn’t attend their regular meeting at noon could hopefully come to that and be part of
the conversation. So, that is one of the big items right now. Another thing that has come
up, just to let the Board know, they have talked with the Hangar Theatre. There has
been a lot of concern about inappropriate parking down by the Hangar Theatre as well
as in the general area of all of Cass Park, literally with the ball diamonds and so forth.
The State Parks sent a representative to the Parks Commission meeting a month ago
saying they will actually be issuing more tickets about illegal parking on the lawn around
the Hangar Theatre. The Parks Commission is going to put flyers or make people aware
of this, but they would like to encourage people to park only in appropriate spots in the
parks because it is becoming a real problem. So that is something the Parks
Commission is going to pursue. Related to that, finally, Andy Hillman was at their
meeting yesterday, as well Jim Dalteria, the manager of Cass Park. Rick Manning, who
obviously has been heading up the Cayuga Waterfront Trail has gotten a grant for about
$10,000 to do some bird habitat out at the park and Andy brought up the fact that we’re
also looking at ways to reduce mowing in the parks and we’re trying to see if we can
identify locations, particularly in Cass Park that could not be mown or perhaps mown
just once a year, include some bird habitat, mainly shrubs, vines, anything that would
increase birds coming to that area and so they are hoping this will be an educational
process. They will put signs up so that people realize that it’s not just the Board of
Public Works not doing their job or the public employees, but they are actually going to
try to do pilot projects where they won’t do as much mowing. Hopefully, this will begin to
include the whole park system throughout the city, both because mowers are such
polluters and the fact that it has become so expensive. They are hoping to set up a
whole new regimen of mowing, so that is another thing that they will be looking at in
terms of Parks Commission. Thank you for your time, you’re always welcome to come
to their meetings which are the second Tuesday at noon. The Parks Commission will try
to keep the Board better informed of what they are doing as a group of commissioners.
Mayor Peterson stated that she just can’t remember, did one of you take the liaison to
Parks Commission.
Commissioner Chapman responded that he believed he offered to.
Daniel Krall stated that Mary Tomlan is their rep from Council,
Mayor Peterson stated that according to the City Code and Charter, for the make-up of
several of our boards and commissions there are supposed to be Board of Public Works
liaisons too. We ran through these the other day and she gave all that information to
Sarah Myers in the City Clerk’s office. She will double check or e-mail, she was a little,
Mayor Peterson had explained that sometimes we look at the liaisons as either going to
every meeting or have a direct person to contact and she thinks that she was confused
by what was meant by that, so perhaps she hasn’t sent out letters to the Parks
Commission about who the liaisons. Mayor Peterson will double check, because they
want to go the other direction as well.
Dan Krall stated that was fine, because the Parks Commission because they felt that
there was some lack of communication. That was what their concern was. He stated
that if Commissioner Chapman would do that, it would be great.
Superintendent Gray stated that related to the leash law, that is part of the Board of
Public Works rules. If you wanted to do that, the Parks Commission would make that
recommendation to the Board.
Dan Krall responded, yes, the Parks Commission can only recommend, absolutely and
they have a lot of people on both sides who feel very strongly about it. They will
certainly let the Board of Public Works decide that. They will make a recommendation,
they are just trying to get a full hearing because they have had so many people come
that people have not had an opportunity to speak freely so they want to make sure that
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 3
everybody had their say and then they will try to make some recommendation to the
Board of Public works as a group.
Mayor Peterson thanked Mr. Krall for his report.
Doria Higgins, Town of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding the off-leash dog park.
She is completely in favor of such a park, but not down at the Festival Lands. One thing
that Mr. Krall said two things. He said there were a lot of people at yesterday’s meeting,
but she was the only person there that spoke against the unleashed, the unleashed dog
park people are very organized and the other thing, one of them quoted and said they
were in communication with Ron Stewart at State Parks, but they didn’t name him by
name and that they were working on the program and they implied he approved and he
is much against this. He is not in favor at all of having an unleashed dog park down
there and he is not working with them he told her and she told the commission that she
had spoken to him that day in which he said this. The fourteen acres down there are
very uniquely beautiful and they are interesting in many ways, the lake is there and so
many reasons that it should be open to everyone. She stated that she had given the
Board a hand out that she wrote back in 1993 when the City Attorney was saying that
the Festival Lands were not parkland. She listed all of the uses to which it had been
made. It’s a wonderful spot and it should be open to the entire community. It should not
be closed off to the rest of us by having unleashed dogs there. They had a bird man at
the meeting who said it was okay for the birds, but it is not. Part of the Festival Lands is
a migratory bird route and the last thing you want in a migratory bird route where they
stay and have their eggs is unleashed dogs running around. Even a lot of dog people
have left the area since the unleashed dogs have been allowed as they have taken
over, you gave them a one year trial period, but they are still there and no one else is
going excepting them. She walks now many times on the canal trail and there are so
many dogs on leash there and she has told those people that they are still using the
Festival Lands for unleashed dogs and they say they know, but one woman said she
got bitten, and another one said the dogs had attacked her dog, so it’s not as peaceful a
thing as the unleashed dog park people are saying. In any event, many dog people are
not going there because of the unleashed dogs. So she strongly asks the Board to
recommend that, and they also say that the natural areas commission was supporting
them and they implied they were supporting the Festival Lands as the site for their and
she spoke to Zev Ross today and he said no, no recommending a site like that is
outside of their purview they recommended the idea of such a park someplace, but the
Natural Areas Commission was not recommending it specifically there and she thinks
that the Board of Public Works must be aware of this innocent mis-representation is
going on that other people are supporting them who are not supporting them. She
suggested that Cherry Street and somebody else mentioned to her the Cherry Street
site which she thinks would be wonderful and they sort of sneered at it and it was just
one person she spoke to who said it was too small, but only half of it is eight acres and
apparently there is more and she doesn’t know what the other half is, so it’s really quite
large and she thinks that would be a wonderful place for them. Anyway, she would hope
that the Board of Public Works would take a stand against the Festival Lands so that all
of us who love that area can go there. She has tried going there, even though she
shouldn’t walk there too much, and dogs love her and she loves dogs, but she doesn’t
want to be jumped on especially on rainy days with wet paws and that’s what happened
twice to her and the owners smile and say isn’t he cute and she says yes, but she
doesn’t want a wet dog jumping on her. Again, keep it for everybody as it is a wonderful
spot, please recommend that it not be for unleashed dogs because once that happens
the rest of us won’t go. Thank you for listening.
Larry Neider, Facilities Maintenance Manager for the Kessler family, they own and
operate 47 Friendly’s restaurants in Upstate New York. What he is asking tonight is to
get an extension on the Elmira Sidewalk project for their restaurant for fifteen more days
because of some of the problems they have had in getting bids and also there are a few
mild challenges with the different elevations that they need to maintain there and as a
result of that it is taking them a little bit of time, but now they are fully onboard with the
contractor, they have signed a contract and they are ready pretty much to proceed. But
they will need a fifteen day extension.
Mayor Peterson asked if the deadline was the middle of this month?
Mr. Neider said it was May 15th. He believes that the contracts are awarded on the 17th
after this hearing?
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 4
Superintendent Gray stated that it would be or next Wednesday if the Board gives
themselves Power to Act.
Mayor Peterson asked if the Board would talk about this when they talk about the Power
to Act piece or what?
Superintendent Gray stated it was one of the hand-outs and there is a notation that
Friendly’s along with Cutting Motors has asked for an extension, so it would be handled
then, so that would be item 7B – Power to Act.
Mr. Nieder stated that Cutting Holdings is actually the landlord of the Friendly’s property
and they were trying to work along with Rob Cutting to make this job so that it’s much
more efficient by using one contractor, but the way that it worked out was that it was
better that they each use their own individual contractors and as a result of this, he
thinks that delayed things also in trying to get this work completed.
Mayor Peterson stated that a little later on in the meeting the Board would address this,
but she wondered if there was any response to the public’s comment as Mr. Nieder is
sitting here as our last person from the public. Does anyone have any comments or
questions?
Commissioner Wykstra asked if Mr. Nieder did have a signed contract?
Mr. Nieder responded yes, that is correct. It does not have a completion date on it, but
he has discussed it with the contractor and they are willing to start. Unfortunately, what
really transpired here was that Rob Cutting had a contractor that was going to give him
a bid, this was the contractor that he awarded the work to. Mr. Nieder submitted to Mr.
Cutting the bids that they had several weeks ago and he elected to go with this other
contractor. He called the contractor several times to give him bids and he finally e-
mailed him a bid last night, but it wasn’t a bid that was attractive to us because it was
considerably more money, so he called his contractor up directly, this is an individual
who has done work for them and you know, obviously can hold a little leverage over
these people because he does do a lot of work, he is right in the middle of a
commitment, he should be done very shortly, but as soon as he is done with that he will
put whatever resources are necessary to make sure that they get the job done within
fifteen days of May 15th.
Mayor Peterson said okay, thank you.
Commissioner Schlather asked who was the contractor?
Mr. Nieder responded that it is R. Watkins, it’s out of Binghamton, New York.
Commissioner Schlather asked if Mr. Nieder actually had something in writing from that
contractor?
Mr. Nieder responded, sure he does and asked Commissioner Schlather if he would like
to see it.
Commissioner Schlather stated no, that’s okay.
Mr. Nieder stated that he also has an e-mail of a quote that he got from the local
contractor from last night that would verify that was sent last night, at the last minute.
Mayor Peterson asked if any of the City staff had seen that contract, since Tom West
was sitting right behind Mr. Nieder?
Mr. Nieder, stated no, that he believes Lynne Yost is on this and the liaison for this
project and he has spoken with her.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he wanted to make sure, is the contractor aware of
this fix, so that it will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 5
Mr. Nieder responded absolutely, they have gone over it quite a bit, because, again, it’s,
you know there is a little bit of an elevation change, we’re not really, we’re a little
different from the abutting properties because of the way their elevation changes and
they are well aware of what needs to happen there and all the materials that need to go
in there and that was a little difficult to try to estimate that because of that elevation
change.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that this was slightly an aside, she was trying to see
something good in this being somewhat staggered. It’s really more of a staff question,
how do we handle the amount of cement trucks dealing with these sidewalks, if they all
come in at a similar time? So, she is thinking that maybe if some are done a little later,
in other words, how do we handle the trucks and the traffic on that road, it’s a very busy
road, very busy season, summertime, it’s bumper to bumper now, how do we
Mayor Peterson asked if they are off road?
Superintendent Gray responded that this one is actually quite far back from the surface.
Mr. Nieder stated that there might be one section that might need to be poured from the
road, but the rest of it he thinks they can probably reach right from their driveway.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she is seeing some good, that some of this gets
staggered so that it’s not a monumental jam otherwise.
Mr. Nieder stated that its been his experience with these types of jobs in the past that
usually the cement trucks are not there for very long because they want to get it, dump
it, finish it and they only do it in sections because you can get too far ahead of yourself
and as the weather gets warmer you can get way ahead of yourself and have real
problem. Thank you very much for opportunity to visit this beautiful city on such a
beautiful day.
Mayor Peterson responded that it’s always beautiful here. The Spring has been really
gorgeous this year. Any other response to the public?
BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT:
License/Encroachment Agreement – 136 Terrace Hill – Resolution
By Commissioner Chapman: Seconded by Commissioner Romanoff
WHEREAS, the attorney for Jason Fane, owner of 136 Terrace Hill, has approached the
City to obtain a license for the continued use of improvements on the southside of the
property consisting largely of parking spaces and related improvement, south and west
of a two-story brick carriage house, and within the Prospect Street, R.O.W., and
WHEREAS, the Board and staff have revised this request and have no objections to the
licensed use of this property under the usual terms and conditions, while remaining
silent on other considerations such as curb cuts, site drainage, or other matters which
come up at other times, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works authorizes staff to develop and the Mayor
to sign the license agreement based on the City’s current standards for such
agreements with the understanding that the agreements are one year in length,
renewable with a termination clause, and that all such agreements are currently under
review by a State audit which is expected to result in changes to the license cost
structure.
Mayor Peterson stated that the previous whereas states that the Board which will be
voting on, but that staff has reviewed this particular request and there are no particular
objections to this license?
Superintendent Gray responded that this parking lot use has actually existed there for a
long time, it is adequate in its layout, it is unlikely that they would bring the curve
through that property, it would actually make the curve wider. It’s unlikely and our
license agreements allow us to go over the property if we need it so any reconstruction
there would take some time and it would be probably a year in development, so he
thought the license was appropriate, they are using it, they have been using it for a long
time, and we have just uncovered the fact that it’s actually our land.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 6
Commissioner Schlather stated that his only concern and he doesn’t have a problem
with the license agreement, his biggest concern is the period of time by which the term
in all event, in other words how much notice is in our standard agreement.
Superintendent Gray stated that he thinks that the license agreements are thirty or
ninety days, but it has been a long time since he has read one. Actually most easement
agreements we agree to a year.
Commissioner Schlather stated that his concern is this, this is simply parking and he is
not saying, he does not think it’s a good idea for us for license agreements to allow or to
establish a longer period. He thinks that thirty days should be adequate notice to the
property owner, obviously if we want to give more, we can give more, but he does not
think we should lock ourselves into a longer period than thirty days if we don’t have to
and since this is a license, we don’t really have to give them even thirty days, but thirty
days is reasonable. But, beyond that he does not see why we should do anything more
than that. As a matter of course.
Superintendent Gray stated that the counter argument would be that most licensed use
are for some purpose, they may invest money and improve parking lot, not that that
applies here, and in some cases we’ve licensed land so that they could spend money
on a sign of some substantial cost in which case you might then say fine, that’s what it
is, but let’s agree to it. So, that’s just the other side of it. He thinks in this case, he is
pretty sure that most of them have short term, he would just have to pull it out. City
Attorney Hoffman is actually waiting for us to supply an estimated initial cost so that he
can propose that to the land owner and he does not know that we have provided that to
you yet.
Commissioner Schlather asked initial cost of what?
Superintendent Gray responded, well just what the cost structure would be based on
our standard practice and he has requested that, but he has not supplied it to the City
Attorney. So, for all he knows, they may decide that they have got enough room on the
lot, they may pull the lot line and not license the use once they find out.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the other thing that he would like to, he wants to
use this as an opportunity. He knows that our cost structure is fairly nominal, it add
pennies really to the tax bill or it’s remarkably cheap. He also knows that it takes time
for the City Attorney’s office and also the Superintendent of Public Works and staff to
negotiate these things. In other words, to get out the maps, to look at it, to figure out if
this is the right thing and then to negotiate it with the property owner. He would like for
us as part of any cost structure analysis to incorporate as almost an upfront cost that
the property owner, if they are going to come to the City and ask for a license
agreement, that the City should pass on the value negotiation, that time onto the
property owner. If they want a license, that’s fine, but they are going to take our City
Attorney, or take our Superintendent or our Deputy Superintendent, they are going to
take them away from other projects, that frankly have more public value and require
them to put time into something that is essentially a private value function, and
therefore, in his view, there ought to be for that type of agreement some requirement of
reimbursement for that. He is just thinking for instance, the City Attorney is sitting here,
the staff have been working on this and he could easily spend two or three hours of
legal time on this, which may have a value of $500.00.
Mayor Peterson stated so a cost structure plus a license application fee or something.
Commissioner Schlather responded, yes, license whatever it is. It is passing on the cost
of getting the license in the first instance. That would also then act as if not deterrent, it
would at least force the person who is seeking the license from the City to do one of two
things – either say yes, this license is valuable to me and therefore I am willing to pay
for that, or if the person decides not to do that or cannot make a compelling case to
come to the City and say, you know this is really for a public good, because we are
going to do x, y, and z, but in exchange, the city is going to derive this benefit and then
it would provide some incentive for us to perhaps waive the fee in exchange for some
public benefit.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 7
Commissioner Romanoff asked how come we only get a pittence for these properties,
why don’t we get a little more? Land is very expensive downtown, why are the fees so
low on these encroachments maybe we should just charge more, make it a little more
and use it for good things like you’re saying. Would that be a simpler method?
Mayor Peterson stated that she does not know legally what we can do, but the
methodology that has been used through assessment, to extend the per value per acre
or any small encroachment area, that values are very small, if you just calculate it that
way and she is not sure we should be calculating it that way. She does not know if there
are any guidelines.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that if we’re not getting enough for it and we can’t get
enough for it because you use that method and she thinks that what Commissioner
Schlather is suggesting is good then, sort of a fee for going through this procedure.
Superintendent Gray stated that those are all good suggestions, but we’re not going to
resolve this tonight and actually he had thought the State would come back, just so you
know, the approach has largely been one just on avoided taxes. The property values,
although in the aggregate aren’t huge, their dollar per square foot basis are fairly large
on individual properties, it’s what the taxes would have been had they held them. But
there is no recovery for the value of the land or the value of service for any of the other
things and so that is as he understands it, the State said that this is just so underpriced,
we need to review it and he thought they were going to come back with suggestions.
Mayor Peterson stated that they’re here now, but she thinks for four particular reasons.
She doesn’t know if this is one of them, but she knows that licensing of docks is one of
them. The State Controller’s who are here at least doing four reviews or looking a little
more indepth of the licensing of the docks is one of them as she recalls, but she doesn’t
think other licensing like encroachment agreements are on their list, but docks are
which is a similar discussion because she thinks that we really under value what we are
charging for the docks that attach to our land. They are reviewing that.
Deputy City Controller responded that was his understanding, there is actually follow-up
from when they were here last year, he believes.
Superintendent Gray stated that he would be willing to look back to what the Board gets
because we get professional appraisals done all the time, by virtue of the land that the
city owns, professional appraisers are sometimes challenged in how to develop a value.
This would be a perfect one to give to somebody who actually earns their living that way
and say how would you do this? So, what would be a reasonable return. The City, he
inherited the system that is in place now, it’s one that has a rational basis, you can
understand how it was developed, he thinks that it does under price the value, but it was
relatively easy to manage. It’s time consuming because we have to try to get
comparable values, but you can understand the basis.
Mayor Peterson stated that one example might be what we charge for a license say on
Route 13 where someone’s parking lot encroaches on, what we charge for a license,
against what we’re expected to pay when our roads going to encroach on somebody
elses property, she bets that those are really out of whack when you compare those for
what we’re charging versus what the landowner is expecting. That would be interesting
to look at.
Commissioner Schlather stated that maybe in this particular case, given that we’re
basically allowing public land to be dedicated for private parking purposes, which A: will
derive a huge financial benefit to the private property owner, both in terms of revenue
from the parking space and probably in terms of capacity for the structures to which this
parking is dedicated, in other words, they are going to be able to cram more people into
his building because he now has more onsite parking available for that purpose.
Mayor Peterson stated yes, there is the economic.
Commissioner Schlather stated so there is a huge economic value to this particular
property owner and to appropoe your point, if we were to in effect try to take those six
spaces from this property owner, believe me we would hear those economic arguments
in terms of establishing value for that land. So, he is a little concerned, he thinks there is
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 8
a difference and he can’t obviously speak to the next one, because there is a conflict
with his firm so he has no interest in discussing that, but he thinks there is a difference
between a property owner a
Mayor Peterson stated what about the one recently in Fall Creek
Commissioner Schlather stated exactly, into Fall Creek, you know where they just
needed it because there was a building that was slightly encroaching into our right-of-
way for that individual, there is a huge difference between that type of encroachment
where we basically say because the bank says you can’t get financing unless you get
some sort of agreement with the City about that or else take it down, there is a
difference between that type of what he would call a nominal encroachment and this
type of wholesale giving of our property and frankly, the docking is the same thing, in
the inlet where we are basically saying to a private enterprise, here take our city
resource and make money off it. So, he is concerned, he does not have much hope
that the State is going to give us the panacea that we are looking for in terms of the
guidance and he thinks we need to be a little more perhaps proactive up front and just
say, look this is what we’re going to do and let’s start now. Is there some reason we
need to wait on this, why can’t we just sit down and
Mayor Peterson stated that it’s been something that we’ve been talking about for a while
and the City Attorney is probably hearing these discussions, at least this go around for
this first time and City Chamberlain Parsons needs to be involved because it’s her office
that is going to send these out. We have been talking about it, how do we establish it,
how is it fair and what should the cost be and she thinks that the City Attorney is
listening to all of this conversation.
Superintendent Gray stated that is fine, let us bring that aspect of it back to you if, he
was hoping that the Board would not be uncomfortable with the way he worded it
because he was trying to put people on notice that if they want to do it now, then modify
it just slightly to mention your intention and then staff will go back and develop it.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he does not know what the time constraint is for
this particular applicant, but would it be unreasonable for us to simply develop the
structure now before we act on this particular application?
Superintendent Gray responded as long as you understand that they’re parking
everyday and the object for us is to start the cash flowing and argue over whether
Mayor Peterson stated that she doesn’t mind that, but she thinks that we should give
sixty, seventy-five, ninety days so we don’t forget it, you know, give us a timeframe so
we can come back and
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he was going to say something similar, to carry it
through and keep it going just perhaps a short term agreement rather than a year with a
timetable.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he was going to say don’t act on this now, let’s just
get the structure in place and see if this particular property owner wants to buy into that
structure.
Tom West stated that the he believes the license fee structure was established by an
act of Common Council, including the terms for it so you are going to need to go to
Common Council if you want to change this. It’s not that it’s a bad idea, it’s a great idea,
but it was very specifically laid out in a very explicit, step by step process for
determining the license fee and he believes the terms of the license fee were
established back when we first started licensing land on Elmira Road.
Mayor Peterson stated that City Chamberlain Parsons has never mentioned a Council
resolution through these discussions, but we’ll look for that.
Tom West responded that he believes that’s where it lies and so he thinks that in order
to change the terms of how you compute the fee and even the terms of the license
agreement, you may have to go to Common Council minutes to look for that.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 9
Commissioner Romanoff stated that this building has been in the hands of this person
for not a very long time and she was wondering if it was bought with this in mind and
that changing it now, we are heading for some kind of murkiness or problems. She
doesn’t know, if he bought it knowing that this is the procedure and that if we change,
well it’s not that huge of an issue. It’s a very successful building. She doesn’t know if
we leave ourselves open to some sort of legal question that we’re changing this after he
has purchased it with this being in place when he purchased this.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he does not know exactly where this license or
encroachment agreement is needed. It came forward when there was financing involved
or the exchange of property was contemplated and so typically there is a closing
approaching or there is a deadline approaching. Someone wants to see that there is
permission to have their parking in the City right-of-way so, again, he is not really
advocating for the property owner, but he is sure that the attorney for the property
owner is going to be calling him soon to say what is going on with this. He tries to turn
them around as expeditiously as possible.
Mayor Peterson stated that her point was a little different, than yours, what she was
referring to if we do table this, that we say we will be back in thirty days or sixty days to
give ourselves a limit on that way so it does not linger out there.
Commissioner Schlather stated that maybe the point that Tom raises is something that
we have to be concerned about and that is, if in fact it is an act of Common Council,
then our involvement in this exercise is more an involvement not in terms of the financial
cost but rather just an infrastructure kind of analysis and he thinks from an infrastructure
kind of analysis, he doesn’t see how this is based on staff report, he can’t see an
infrastructure problem at this point, but he thinks that since we can’t vote on this, no, we
can vote on this today, he guesses what he would like to do is table and give ourselves
Power to Act and ask the City Attorney or somebody to report back to the Board, are we
the ones that set the rates or is Common Council the one that set the rates and if it is
Common Council, he thinks he is inclined to go in one direction, if it’s us, then he thinks
we need to deal with that problem. That he would prefer to deal with it before passing
this resolution. But, if it is Common Council that passes it, then he probably would just
authorize this and encourage Common Council to revisit the rates.
Motion to Table:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Romanoff
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works table the discussion of
License/Encroachment Agreement – 136 Terrace Hill, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on this item at their May 17, 2006
Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Carried
Unanimously
Encroachment Agreement – 514 Cliff Street – Resolution
By Commissioner Romanoff : Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, the attorney for Karen Updike at 415 Cliff Street has approached the City
Attorney to request an encroachment for stairs which are located at the southeast
corner of the house, and
WHEREAS, the Board and staff have reviewed this request and have no objections to
the encroachment under the usual terms and conditions, now therefore be it,
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works grants conceptual approval of the
encroachment as presented and authorizes the Mayor to sign the encroachment
agreement with the usual terms and conditions, including maintenance of the steps by
the property owner, after consultation with the Superintendent and the City Attorney.
Mayor Peterson asked the Board if they felt the same way about this item:
Commissioner Schlather stated for the record, that he is recused from any consideration
or discussion on this particular one.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 10
Mayor Peterson asked if the City Attorney wanted to come forward to speak to this item
with the Board.
City Attorney Hoffman stated this is different from the previous request, there is no
license being requested because there is no commercial use being made. This is a set
of steps which go down from the yard of the house to the curb of Cliff Street. Typical for
houses on that side of the street and we were told that the steps have been there for a
long time. He has no reason to doubt that. The owner of the property is trying to sell it,
so of course, the buyer or the buyer’s lender’s attorney would be wanting to know that
those steps have a right to be there and can remain for some reasonable period of time.
Mayor Peterson asked if anyone wished to move this item.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that the City has concerns from time to time about who is
responsible for maintaining such steps and he does not know if anything needs to be
put in the agreement that maintenance would be the property owner’s responsibility;
rather than the City’s.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that would be his inclination to put that wording in there.
Mayor Peterson asked the City Attorney if it would be a problem to put that wording in
there.
City Attorney Hoffman responded no, that we’re doing them a favor by allowing them to
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she would like to move it based on what she just
heard, with the addendum of the maintenance being in the hands of the owner.
Superintendent Gray stated that the normal agreement does include those kinds of
things, including the hold harmless associated with the use of that property. It is
important to probably state it outright.
Commissioner Chapman asked Supt. Ferrel if this set of steps impacted by the rebuild
this year or next of Cliff
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded no. All we will be doing in this section where this house is
is repair of catch basins and overlaying the street.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Jenkins, Romanoff, Chapman, Wykstra, Peterson
Nays (0)
Abstentions (1) Schlather
Carried
Mayor Peterson stated that we did have item C, but Supt. Gray suggested that we move
through the items where there is staff waiting before it, if that is okay with everybody?
The Board agreed.
Supt. Gray stated that item C includes staff as well.
Mayor Peterson responded that is a big item. Shall we do 10A because Tom needs to
be here for sidewalks and for GIAC, and then do sidewalks and Mr. Nieder will be able
to hear what we do there. Why don’t we do that since we have a member from the
public, if that is alright with everyone if we move to the sidewalk program?
No Board member objected.
Mayor Peterson stated then Scott Gibson, and then back to GIAC. So, Tom, do you
want to come forward please for item 7A, the sidewalk program?
HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS
Elmira Road Sidewalks – Phase I - Discussion
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 11
Supt. Gray explained to the Board that he didn’t give them a formed resolution, it was
just for Power to Act on Award of Phase I of Elmira Road Sidewalk Improvements next
week. He is thinking that they will do a report on Phase II and a discussion on a number
of items, so the intent that there would be one formal resolution on the floor to give the
Board Power to Act.
Mayor Peterson stated that the Board has two resolutions; one is the other sidewalk bid
and then the Power to Act for Elmira Road. Is that right?
Supt. Gray responded that was right, he apologized and said the Mayor was doing item
A and he was talking about item B.
Mayor Peterson stated that we could do B first if you want to.
Supt. Gray stated that is the one that Mr. Nieder is here for.
Mayor Peterson responded that’s right.
Tom West stated that as you surely recall, we, following your direction, we issued
notices to property owners directing to have sidewalks constructed on that portion of
Elmira Road from the end of the improvements on Meadow Street up to approximately
Southwest Drive access road. There were, he believes, ten property owners along that
stretch. The Board offered to give the property owners until the 15th of May to have
substantial completion on those properties or the City would take action to have those
sidewalks constructed. We are just about to the 15th and effective on he believes the
16th or 17th we do need to award contract to our low bidder in order to undertake those
improvements where they have not been substantially completed. At this point, we have
four properties on which no action has been taken, and we have six properties and they
are summarized on that chart on which some action has been taken. In no case, do we
appear to complete the work by the 15th on those six properties. However, they are all in
various stages of undertaking, the value of the four properties that have had no action,
is approximately $72,000, the value of the properties on which some action has been
taken is approximately $113,000. As you have heard, there have been discussions with
staff on all of these properties to one degree or another. He guesses if, he would like to
suggest that we give these six property owners, one of which is us, adequate time to
complete the work and then award contract for the remaining four properties and the
payment of our work. This would leave us approximately $100,000 available for
undertaking Phase II and the additional sidewalk work that we have intentions of
completing during the rest of this year. That is in a nutshell.
Commissioner Schlather asked Tom if he was satisfied that with respect to the six
property owners, he noticed, he went down and checked it out and one of them he
thinks that the concrete was poured actually today or yesterday and it’s looking good.
Are you satisfied that though with respect to the other five that in fact that property,
those projects will be completed by the end of the month or thereabouts.
Tom West stated that one of them, the owner, the Benderson property is proposing to
complete their work
Commissioner Schlather stated, other than the September one,
Tom West stated that he is personally familiar with the work that Rob Cutting wishes to
undertake with McPherson Builders and he is confident that work will be completed
within the time period he has expressed. He is familiar with the J.C. Smith project and
he knows they are endeavoring to get that done and although he has not heard directly
from the representative from Friendly’s, he believes from the documentation that he has
prepared to present that that work would be done within a reasonable timeframe. As
you can see, he has not been directly involved with the Wendy’s project, Lynne has and
she has issued a sidewalk permit, so work is underway. He thinks that we could feel
confident that these projects will get done when they have been proposed to be done.
Commissioner Romanoff asked what do we do about Messrs. Milton and Reuben
Weiner, the City will get a contractor, they get formed and shaped and poured and they
get built, that’s it.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 12
Tom West stated that’s it and that bill includes a 25% charge.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that when it says no action, the City will take action.
Tom West responded yes.
Commissioner Romanoff asked if that work would be done this summer and that is part
of all this?
Tom West stated that when the Board makes award of contract, at your next meeting,
he is suggesting that it would be for those four properties that no action has been taken
on. That contractor is ready to go.
Commissioner Wykstra asked if where it says no action, if he understands it correctly, in
what you just said, it means that the property owner has taken no action, correct?
Tom West responded that they have not been recently in communication with us and
they have not filed for a street permit, they haven’t even asked for clarification of the
Board’s direction.
Commissioner Wykstra stated so that indicates in depth that they haven’t even
responded to the City’s directive in anyway, they haven’t called up and said no, we don’t
want to do it, nothing?
Tom West responded that was correct. We even extended the courtesy of sending them
a reminder letter including our bid prices for our qualified low bidder as well as other
bidders for this contract work so that if they for some reason were unable to locate a
contractor, they did get that information sent to them.
Commissioner Wykstra asked if that happened very often each year, that there will be
owners that sort of behave in that fashion and when we go to bill them they might raise
complaints about it then or is this particular to these two gentlemen?
Tom West stated that quite frankly we have not done this in quite a few years, so he
can’t speak from recent experience. He will say that the properties owned by Reuben
Weiner are unique in that he has by contract filed at the County Clerk’s office passed on
his responsibilities for maintenance of the property to the tenants that are occupying it,
mainly in one case, the Monroe Muffler project which is a rather big project. We did
speak with them initially when the Board had issued its original directive and they have
not communicated with us since that time.
Supt. Gray stated that the discussion that the Board is going through, the reason for
recommending the Power to Act for next week, is that he thought it would be useful in
terms of the money, if you agree to extend the times for instance Friendly’s and the
ones we’ve discussed, the $113,000 that Tom referred to there we would be able to use
in places for other sidewalks, if we didn’t then we’ve got to dedicate that money to this
process and we would tie it up. So, part of what he was hoping to do is bring back next
week the award for all of the work and a budget that shows you where this money would
go and brings up the Phase II part and discusses how the Phase II would proceed and
so that was his intention when suggesting Power to Act for next week. It is important
that you see this now because we need to be able to deal with Friendly’s and the rest so
that they can proceed in a normal manner.
Mayor Peterson stated that nobody has said this yet, but she is comfortable with the
extension for Friendly’s do she does not know what other people are thinking right now,
but she does not have a problem with it.
Commissioner Chapman stated that he was going to touch on that. When Mr. Cutting
came in last year, one of his arguments was that it wasn’t fair that some of the
businesses and property owners on the street were going to be required to install a
sidewalk by a certain date and others would have a different date. So, he thinks that it
is important that we somehow make sure that these are, that we define substantially
underway, that the permits for work are in place, etc. may be what we call substantially
underway and but as long as we have some sort of basis for declaring that, he would
also feel comfortable for granting the extensions. The one other item, he wanted to ask,
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 13
if he may. On the first four bid alternates, when there is no contact with an owner, he is
wondering about the liability of entering onto their property to proceed with this work. Is
this all in our right-of-way or do we have to encroach on the private property at all?
Tom West stated that all of this work is absolutely within our right-of-way and an
interesting segway of sorts although you’re getting bogged in a quagmire, the properties
owned by Weiner and occupied by Monroe Muffler are being used under license
agreement and so we will be recovering some of the property that we allow them use of.
We have given them adequate notice, way more than 30, 60, or 90 days that we are
taking back our property for public use. It is all on public property.
Commissioner Schlather stated to follow up on what Commissioner Chapman was
saying, he actually do support the extension, but he would like in order for the Board to
be doing this in a way that is fair to everyone. He would suggest that our language of
the resolution, that we would have the resolved that awards to McCall Masonry for
whatever that number is $72,000, etc. but then there would be a second Resolved that
given that the other affected parcels either substantially have completed or have
produced binding contracts for timely completion of the sidewalks across their parcels,
then we would somehow extend the date for them. What he is looking for, by next
meeting and he is going to ask staff to contact these folks and tell them that in order for
the Board to be able to distinguish those parcels from the parcels where there has been
no action taken, we need to have something in hand that we can point to that says you
have substantially completed or you have a binding contract which fits within our time
framework. So, he is assuming – there are two issues there. One is McCall Masonry is
presumably going to have the work done by when, July 1st?
Tom West responded that he does not know the completion date, he believes they were
given 60 days from the notice to proceed which usually follows the notice of award by
about two weeks. So, figure 72 days from date of award of contract it would need to be
completed.
Commissioner Schlather stated so they are going to have pretty much until August 1st,
and so then he would suggest that given they are going to have until August 1st, that we
in effect, afford that same courtesy and he hates to do this, in other words either August
1st or July 1st maybe July 1st just to be safe, but that we basically say to the other
property owners that if you have a binding contract in hand, with a completion date no
later than July 1st, then that satisfies us and then we will exempt you from the bid
process. He knows that everyone has been pushing that we’ll get it done by June 1st,
but he thinks that in fairness, because he is going to suggest that you go back to the
other, the Weiner parcels, since there is only one person basically or two people for all
four of those parcels, and simply say to them and words are substance, look if you can
have your own binding contract that says this work will get done by July 1st, we will
accept that in lieu of awarding the bid to McCall Masonry and you’re saying no, but he is
just trying to think out loud. If he were Weiner and Company, and he found out that
there was this deadline, but then all of sudden all these other people were getting
around the deadline; other than Benderson because we’re agreeing that we’ll have to
put in a separate thing for Benderson, but his point simply is, we’ve got to give them the
same option, if we’re going to let other people avoid the deadline, then we have to give
them that same privilege.
Tom West stated that he would like to suggest that the binding contract already exists
with those property owners that have permits and that the permit date, he would
imagine because you set the date, May 15th, so we do have with those property owners
a contract that he would consider quite binding. We can define the degree of completion
to have it to be acquisition of the permit so the other property owners would have full
right, before the 15th to obtain a permit and if the Board chose to give these property
owners that are underway some extension, we could extend it via that permit – if they
come in between now and the 15th and apply for a permit.
Commissioner Schlather asked if he could respond to that? If you have a permit, that
doesn’t mean you have to do the work. A permit just says you’re allowed to do the work
and you’ve given how much time to do it, two years?
Tom West responded no, we set the date per permit.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 14
Commissioner Schlather stated so it’s not a permit, it’s from your office.
Tom West responded that was correct, it is a street permit; unlike a building permit.
Commissioner Schlather stated that that is still not binding that they have to do the
work.
Tom West responded that it has been directed to be done and we’re giving them the
time period in which to do it. He would suggest that it is their agreement with us that
establishes the period of time in which they will they’ll complete it.
Commissioner Schlather stated that what he is concerned about is this – McCall’s
Masonry, we award a bid to McCall Masonry next week that says do these x, y, and z
but we intentionally leave off w, because you’ve given a permit to w. Then what
happens if w doesn’t do the work? We’re going to have to then re-bid to get McCall to
come in and do the work.
Tom West responded, if in fact McCall withdrew its offer to do the work at that price,
which is highly unlikely, but he understands that it is a possibility, but it is highly unlikely
and again, the only that we have not seen some explicit action on is Benderson, among
these six.
Commissioner Schlather stated that Benderson sent us a letter.
Tom West stated yes, other than the communication, but in terms of actually attempting
some construction by getting a bid or whatever.
Supt. Gray stated that they are going through site plan review process, they have an
approved site plan and now they are going out to get bids, so in one sense they have
certainly undertaken administratively to get in line. They didn’t get the permit from us.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the Board, at the last meeting, you were going to
investigate whether they would do an asphalt
Supt. Gray responded that he has a phone call into them, but they have had less than
24 hours to respond to it. That was also part of his motivation for the Power to Act next
week, hopefully we would come in with several of these things tied up.
Commissioner Schlather stated that what he is looking for is, he sees a resolution that
would basically have three resolved, the first resolved is McCall Masonry as the
contractor, the second Resolved
Mayor Peterson asked if he was talking about the Power to Act for next week?
Commissioner Schlather responded yes, the Power to Act for next week. First resolved
would be McCall Masonry as the contractor for whichever ones they are going to build
on. The second one would be some acknowledgement that those projects that are
however we want to define them, substantially completed, they’ve gotten a permit,
maybe that’s it, may be that’s enough, but that they’ve gotten a sidewalk permit and are
committed to completing the project no later than let’s say July 1st or June 15th or
whatever the date is that in light of that we are not requiring that they fall within the
McCall Masonry contract, but maybe put in there that if they don’t finish under the terms
of the permit, then they will be subject to the McCall Masonry work thereafter, so maybe
we could do something along those lines. Then the third resolved would be then for
Benderson because they are in site plan review and the site plan review will provide for
sidewalks and it will happen before September 30th that we are exempting them
providing that they put in their asphalt temporary walkway. That is what he would be
looking for.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was a motion for the Board to give themselves Power to
Act on Elmira Road Phase I? for next week?
Power To Act – Elmira Road Sidewalks – Phase I - Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Chapman
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 15
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on Elmira Road Sidewalks Phase
I at the May 17, 2006 Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would move it with those three provisios and he
will draft the language, is he making life complicated.
Mayor Peterson stated no, what she is thinking, yes Power to Act assuming the
resolution is substantially similar to what you’ve said because we don’t vote on the
resolution at this point.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she had a tiny little technical question of Tom
West. It looks like the sidewalks will be poured in sort of the hottest time of the year, but
we no longer have to water them and cover them right? These are not sidewalks that
you have to slow cure? She knows that Supt. Gray was saying that we should not do
them late in the season because the frost affects them, but we’re, it looks like with some
of these delays, some will be done during the hottest part of the summer and will we be
required or will they be required to cover them, water them, and cure them slowly, or do
we use a concrete today that doesn’t have to go through that.
Tom West responded that what contractors are typically using is curing compound that
they put on after they’re placed and finished the concrete and although it is not his
favorite method, it’s accepted and has an industry standard. Being this early in the
season, that is being this far in advance of any time that we would be putting down salt,
he does not think that is too scary a prospect. He does think that the older fashioned
method of burlap and watering is a superior way to cure or even plastic covers is a
better cure.
Commissioner Romanoff asked if he was going to call for that in addition to the sealer?
Tom West stated that he had to say that he does not know what our specs currently
calls for, but it does call for adequate curing. Unfortunately he is not familiar.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that we’ve waited so long to get these, it would be nice
to get a really well cured good job, it’s taken so long to get these sidewalks, it would be
nice to see them there for awhile.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he thinks somewhat along the same lines, he is
hearing the date July 1st and he does not have a problem with that because he would
like them to be able to in some of the more trickier areas, the grade you referred to
earlier, be able to have adequate time to do a good job. He thinks that is fine.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
2006 Yearly Sidewalk Program – Award to lowest bidder – Resolution
By Commissioner Romanoff: Seconded by Commissioner Chapman
WHEREAS, bids were received on May 2, 2006 for the 2006 Yearly Sidewalk Program
for the City of Ithaca, two bids were submitted, funds for the work are budgeted in the
Capital Project #249 – Sidewalk Repair, and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the submitted bids, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That McCall Masonry, PO Box 304, Sayre, Pennsylvania, 18840 is
awarded the 2006 Yearly Sidewalk Program with the bid document specified locations
at their low bid price of $113,645.
Mayor Peterson asked if the Board had a list of the specified locations this refers to.
Supt. Gray responded that staff should have provided the bid document breakdown so
they could see that.
Mayor Peterson stated that the reason she asks is because in the last three days there
has been a flurry of Common Council e-mails about sidewalks. There are several
things, she thinks that maybe the Council members do not understand the sidewalk
program and what it is and how it is managed; nor do they understand who owns the
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 16
sidewalks and who does those repairs and she can share this with you and Lynne, Tom.
So that is one comment. Secondly, she believes that last year there was a lot of
concentration on curb cuts at the corners and so on and she was curious what the kind
of general theme is this year.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated that the Disability Advisory Council worked quite closely
with Lynne to identify 36 corners that are going to be dealt with.
Supt. Gray stated that he thought that 41 were submitted on the list and some portion of
those was incorporated into the work plan, but he doesn’t think all of them were.
DAD Liaison Roberts continued and stated that the DAC did work closely with Lynne to
come up with a list of corners that will be addressed, including some that weren’t
addressed last year, including one of the curbs at Seneca and Cayuga which has been
a huge problem for a number of years which is great. Also, including many curbs and
corners in the Fall Creek area of the City, where curb cuts have been missing. He just
quickly wants to say that he doesn’t know what other sidewalk things are going on with
the program, but in terms of the curb cuts and curb ramps, the DAC is very pleased with
the work they have been able to do. There are places in Fall Creek and along Cayuga
Street where curb ramps have not existed and he feels that we are moving in the right
direction, as a result of a survey done by a member of the DAC who did a survey of the
area and collected input, so we look forward to this work being done.
Commissioner Schlather asked if McCall Masonry the same entity that has submitted
the low bid with result to the Elmira Road sidewalk project as well?
Tom West responded yes.
Commissioner Schlather asked if these alternates that are set forth here, bid alternates
1-10, are those alternates to the yearly sidewalk program?
Tom West responded no, they were issued as two separate contracts so that we could
clearly delineate the costs per property owner on Elmira Road because of some of the
topics that have been brought up, the proximity to the highway, the logistics for
maintenance and protection of traffic. We wanted to make sure that we could clearly
define the costs and still have the flexibility to have the property owners to do the work
themselves. That is why the Elmira Road Phase I was broken down into those ten
alternates, so when people who have completed them have been done, it’s easy
enough to not award those.
Supt. Gray stated that if we brought them back as a bid item and work breakdown under
this, we could work this next week, is there a time?
Tom West responded that we have plenty of time to award the bid, but the sooner we
award, the sooner we can get underway with the work.
Commissioner Schlather stated from his standpoint, he does not mind making the
award, the final question he has is that last year there were many complaints about how
long it took for various intersections to be completed, they would dig them out and then
go away and we were having these conversations. Is there anything in this particular
contract that will require McCall to once they open it up that they will get the work done
within a certain period of time?
Tom West responded that logistically this will be an easier contract. Last years contract
was awarded to a general contractor who did not actually do the masonry work and so
we started out at a disadvantage getting coordination from the contractor and his sub-
contractor. The contractor holder would go around and do all the excavation and then
not hold his sub-contractor for getting there on time, no matter how hard we leaned on
the general contractor, without his understanding that there was a public need, we had
a very difficult time getting the sub-contractor to respond. The sub-contractor last year
ended up being McCalls and his contract as the sub-contractor was executed late in the
season, so he had many commitments that left him unable to keep up with the general
contractor with whom we had the contract. So, it was very awkward to make demands
upon the actual entity doing the work and it was ineffective making demands upon the
entity with whom we had a contract.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 17
Commissioner Schlather asked if the City was satisfied with the quality of McCall’s work
last year?
Tom West responded yes, we are and McCall’s is an average to good masonry
contractor as far as flat work is concerned.
DAC Liaison stated, from a personal point of view, that they are very good curb cuts at
this point and they’ve only been in place for a little less than a year.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
WATER AND SEWER
Stormwater Management Program Annual Report – Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Romanoff
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is a permitted small Municipal Separate Stormwater
Sewer System (MS4) under Clean Water Act Phase II regulations for Stormwater
discharges, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca received State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit coverage through the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) on March 10, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the permit requires the City to incrementally develop a Stormwater
management program (SWMP) no later than January 8, 2008, by meeting measurable
goals including public education and outreach, public involvement and participation,
illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction and post construction
management, and management or municipal operations, and
WHEREAS, the City is required to file its 3rd annual progress report to the NYSDEC by
June 1, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the City has addressed all public comments received therein; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves the City of Ithaca
Stormwater Management Program Annual Report which represents the status of the
City’s Storm Water Management Program for the 2005-2006 reporting period, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Division of Water and Sewer is authorized to
submit said report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation by
June 1, 2006.
Scott Gibson explained there was one outlying issue and that was who was the
owner/operator for this report – either Mayor Peterson or Superintendent Gray.
Scott Gibson stated that he would say that it is really he thinks the language is geared
toward who is the Commander-in-Chief, if you will and most of the other MSP Boards
are using the Mayor as that position.
Mayor Peterson agreed to that.
Scott Gibson added that the report has been advertised in the Ithaca Journal. He did
have one request for a copy of the report, it was from an engineering firm in
Binghamton. He has received no other comments.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he thinks that this is obviously important and it does
dovetail into all our water treatment plant issues in an odd sort of way because we keep
talking about the sedimentation and basically the cleanliness of our tributaries and
ultimately the lake. He is proud that we are moving ahead with this and in an efficient
and progressive sort of way, so thank you.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 18
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Request to Establish Emergency Capital Project for GIAC Facility Repairs –
Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, recently concrete portions of the GIAC facility failed and began falling, and
WHEREAS, the GIAC facility failure represents an emergency capital procurement due
to its unforeseen occurrence affecting public building, public property, health, and safety
issues to the facility’s many occupants, and
WHEREAS, the early estimated total cost of the project is $200,000; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that Common Council
authorize Capital Project #499 GIAC Emergency Facility Repairs at a cost not to exceed
$200,000 for emergency repairs to the GIAC facility, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the project is hereby deemed an emergency project thereby making
the project not subject to the bidding requirements of General Municipal Law, Section
103, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the project funds shall be advanced by the General Fund and later
repaid by the issuance of Serial Bonds.
Mayor Peterson explained that this resolution establishes an emergency capital project
to start working on these repairs immediately. Is everyone familiar with the GIAC, it’s
only Wednesday and we started madly scrambling on Monday morning when one of our
City workers was on site, Bob Mitchell, at GIAC and immediately when that problem
became known we started blocking off the area and notifying the building department,
the engineering department, the fire department, the Mayor’s office. She wanted to say
that she is very pleased and proud with how everybody responded so quickly and put
lots and lots of time and many hours into responding to this immediately. Also, going on
in the background is the help that has come in from various departments and from
Southside Community Center, The Salvation Army, BJM School, she also got various e-
mails from the public offering help for offices for people to work from or space for
children to have their programs, so all of that is going on as we’re trying to get this
building open as quickly and as safely as possible and to get the repairs done. So, Bill
or Tom, she assumes since she saw them this afternoon that this has been written with
the Controller’s office as well?
Supt. Gray responded that the Controller’s office submitted it to staff. There are very few
things that are exempt in nature. Tom is passing around some photographs to show the
work. The work needs to be resolved quickly so that we can get people back into the
building. We believe now, Tom has spent an awful lot of time talking with contractors,
reviewing it, has had staff and bucket trucks and the rest and so he will ask Tom to
address what we are recommending as a solution to the Board.
Tom West stated that they got called to the site, a piece of for lack of a better term
“concrete trim” fell from above a window just above the exterior door to the pee-wee
room of the daycare that is conducted at GIAC. When that fell and you’ll see that in the
photo that sort of long view shot of that window and there is a missing piece of trim
stone, because the rest of those trim stones look unstable, all of the exits on that side of
the building have been closed, that includes the fire stair tower, the roof entry to the
pee-wee room, the basement entry, and the main entrance into the foyer between the
gym and the older building on Court Street, so none of those entries are open at this
time. The Engineer’s Office was asked to do an inspection of the entire facade of the
building, we’ve conducted that inspection as Bill mentioned and we’ve determined that
there are three locations that need immediate attention. The other locations need
attention. The three that need immediate attention are the one where the failure
occurred, we also got a loose sill stone above the entrance onto the playground, and we
have similar but smaller conditions similar to this failure zone over the main entrance on
Albany Street and those are the three that they consider to need immediate mitigation
and repair. The fire department and building department have agreed that once we
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 19
have secured those entries to the playground, and Albany Street, and all of the entries
except the pee-wee room door on Court Street that we can re-occupy the building. The
office of Children and Family Services in Syracuse has been to the site several times
and agree that they will lift the suspension on the use of the building for day care once
we are able to comply with the building code and open those entries. They have agreed
that we can conduct our repairs while the building is occupied provided that we do that
in a safe manner. We have had two contractors go to the site to look at the damage that
needs to be repaired and they are putting together estimates for us right now. We will
have those estimates in hand by mid day Friday and we will presumably choose one of
the two to undertake the work and get scaffolding up to protect the entrances. In
addition, we feel that although the other openings in the building, the window openings
and door openings are not imminently hazardous. They are deteriorated in most likely
the same way that this failure occurred and so a number of entities of the engineer’s
office, the building department, the Office of Family & Children’s Services have had
independently decided that we do need to fence off the area around the building where
there could potentially be an additional failure. We don’t believe those are imminent, but
they are cataclysmic failures or catastrophic failures which means they can occur with
little or no forewarning. Those are the actions that we propose to take. I have not seen
the resolution. We are going to ask the Board of Public Works to recommend to
Common Council funding repair of all the brick work above all of the openings around
the perimeter of the building and we will undertake the emergency repairs with these
two contractors, get that done and then use our experience with those repairs to put
together a contract for bidding purposes to correct the other locations and that is what
they propose to do. We have been advised by the Office of Family and Children’s
Services that although they will lift the suspension upon satisfying the building
department and fire department for egress to and from the building, that they would not
lift, they would not erase the violation that they have determined that the building has,
until we have established a date to complete the repairs at all locations. So, that’s why
we are recommending the larger scope project.
Commissioner Jenkins asked who inspects the buildings and if looking at the damage
and some of the cracks look like water would have went in and caused water damage
inside, and how often do they get inspected and has anybody from GIAC come to the
City and said we have this damage going on and did anybody go and check it out?
Because she is looking at the one where it could go right in and would cause some kind
of water damage inside on the wall. Would there be mold or anything else?
Tom West responded, to start with the second part first, which is the one about water
damage and water intrusion. Water intrusion occurs in the way this is constructed from
two directions, one is from the roof coming into the back of the wall, the other is from
face of the wall sort of with rain soaking through the brick. Brick is porous and water can
get in through both ways. In approximately 1992-1993 we replaced the roof putting on a
very good quality rubberized roof and since 1992-1993 we have prevented water from
entering the wall system from the roof. Unfortunately, we did not undertake repairs to
the exterior at that time, it was not part of the scope of the project and so before and
even after 1992, we have still experienced water coming through the face of the bricks.
In some locations we do see damage to the paint and plaster on the interior of the
building above these windows. We have not had and we have not observed mold
growing in any of these locations. The staff at GIAC and maintenance staff from Public
Works has mentioned the fact that we have some water damage occurring in the interior
spaces in some locations to us. That has been reported to us. To answer the first part of
your question, the buildings are inspected for various reasons at different return periods.
For instance, the sprinkler systems are inspected, he believes, but does not know the
exact recurring period for the inspection of the sprinkler systems, but they are
inspected, the alarm systems are inspected periodically, and again he is not sure
whether it is quarterly, semi-annually, or annually, but they do have set periods to them.
They are inspected and we have the reports for those kinds of things. The building
systems have been inspected periodically. In the early 1990’s they were inspected. In
approximately 1998 we did a general building assessment of all city buildings and of
course GIAC was included, we refer to that as the Thomas Report and the deterioration
of the brick work was reported in that assessment. It was not prioritized as a high
priority item, but it was noted in that. In addition, based upon I believe in that report in
staff reports of water damage to the interior we have worked with a number of entities to
try to fund repairs to the exterior, but we were unsuccessful in accomplishing those. So,
it does get inspected periodically.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 20
Commissioner Jenkins responded that with this all happening would inspection be
stepped up to maybe do it more often, if they keep an eye on the building because it is
old and with the weather that we’ve been having?
Tom West stated that he would leave that to Supt. Gray to answer.
Supt. Gray stated that is certainly not Tom’s issue. He would say that with this problem,
we found a new thing to look at. The types of inspections that we’ve done of the roof
and things do not necessarily involve actually leaning over and looking down at all the
header pieces over the tops of the windows. We’ve now done that, and you can actually
see where this problem is, you can see some others building. He can’t tell you that if he
looked over it last year at this time that he would have seen the same thing, but he is
not sure that his eye would have known to pick that up and he is not sure with the
various types of freeze/thaw damage that occurred not only in this city, but actually in
discussions that he has had in the last two days with people in surrounding areas.
There has been an unusual amount of stone wall collapses and other things that
actually got moved around by the ground moisture. It’s not meant to excuse the fact that
we didn’t see this problem coming. He is not sure how we would have picked it up, but
he thinks that there was a combination of weather patterns. What seemingly was a mild
winter this year, because we went well above freezing and then back below freezing,
but it seemed generally mild was just the kind of weather that produces the freeze/thaw
damage that this is part of. Again, we learned a couple of things, we’ll know where to
look at this on other types of buildings. This building is the only one of this particular
style of architecture. Fortunately, now window lentils of this type have different types of
drainage and water proofing and protection so it’s unlikely that we’ll see exactly this kind
of problem in some of our other buildings, but we have a broad range of buildings, built
at different times, and each one is going to teach us lessons in their care and upkeep.
We did learn a few things here.
Commissioner Jenkins stated that usually someone tells you that you have water
damage and it’s on the wall. It’s coming from somewhere and was it investigated where
it might be coming from?
Supt. Gray stated that in fact, on the first floor of this building, we are still chasing some
water damage that shows up in the plaster work and we’re trying to figure out if it’s
coming from the roof, from the actually coping or parapet or whether it’s coming through
the wall. We do chase that on other buildings in addition to that building. They point out
the repairs that have been done to GIAC.
Mayor Peterson stated that she regrets to say that the Thomas report is this thick. It
examines every facility from city cemetery to the golf course, to every building, to every
fire station and we have a lot of property and a lot of things to care for and earlier, she
thinks it was this year or the end of last year, she thinks it was last year’s budget, similar
thing happened at the police department. The plaster and ceiling started falling down on
the police department. The Youth Bureau which is a new building, they had a water
problem, and they opted for a fix rather than a new roof because their building is
relatively new and their move is relatively new. So, there are a lot of issues and in this
report that Tom referred the consultants ranked each area priority one, two or three and
she looked at her report as well and it was not ranked number one, she thinks it was a
number two ranking, but along with infrastructure work that we are behind on with the
city and the building structure work, there is an awful to do.
Supt. Gray stated that the Mayor hasn’t said, but this is the first year when we’ve
actually had staff reinserted into our public works budget which was meant to address
the fact that we had fallen behind and a whole group of things. He further stated that
Asst. Supt. Ferrel can tell the Board that he used to have a crew of several people who
dealt with the buildings, and now he’s down to one person
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded, no we have two.
Supt. Gray stated that we’re starting to address that, but we’re coming from behind.
Commissioner Jenkins asked if we carry insurance on our buildings? Property
insurance?
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 21
Mayor Peterson stated yes.
Supt. Gray stated that we’re self-insured for things unless they’re very large.
Commissioner Jenkins asked if they knew what she meant, like your home owner’s
insurance, like if your roof collapses, you go to your insurance company.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the insurance would not cover this type of damage.
If this were like a wind damage or if a tree fell on a building and knocked a wall down,
then it would cover it. But ordinary deterioration would not be covered.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she was extremely upset when she read about this
and she thinks that we were very very lucky that it really had an okay ending. She does
think, and she went over there herself a couple of days ago, yesterday, when Tom was
there. She thinks that the City’s response to something really quite terrible was
excellent, everybody was there and she thinks they are getting their bids quickly, and
they are doing the best they can. She thinks that we need to learn from this experience
and she thinks that since we do own a lot of older buildings, not that new ones haven’t
done this, like the parking garage in Rochester and so forth, not at all to say this just
happens to older architecture, but she thinks that we need to take this as a lesson that
we take these inspections and some how have to find the funding and the staffing to do
them more often and more thoroughly and that we did through that Thomas Report
which can be used as a guideline. But really look at what we own. And unfortunately,
these aren’t ours, but there are quite a few of these types of buildings around
downtown, the Downing School that has the exact same elements and is about the
same age and he has the apartment building that also has pieces of concrete imbedded
in brick and maybe it would behoove, these are privately owned, but we walk around
them everyday, so this is a particular style of architecture that likes to eject its own
facades because the clips rust. She was pretty shook up and she hopes that we can
look at that book and realize that we have to look at our buildings in more depth.
She thinks this is a warning.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated to inform the Board that the school district is a little nervous
about BJM and they called him the other day. They are hiring a structural engineer to
look over that building and possibly the Belle Sherman building also as they are similar
construction.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he just has a couple of questions and then a
comment and don’t belabor this. Do we know, in fact, what caused this. Was it a clip
failure or water damage or mortar pointing failure. Can you tell me briefly what caused
it?
Tom West stated that we’re pretty sure we understand what happened. The concrete
pieces that you see in the photo and there are two sort of horizontal lines of concrete
pieces that look like stone are both carried by a 4” x 5” angle that is bolted to the
structure of the building and the block sits on top of that and then the block that fills that
is on top of that one. As water entered the wall from both sides over the decades, it ran
down the inside of the wall and besides just the moisture freezing/thawing and pushing
on the brick and the concrete stone pieces it also came to rest on that bottom part of
that angle and rusted it away and there is one photo in which you can clearly see a line
of corroded steel and if you don’t have one there, there is this one on the top, you can
clearly see that there is corroded steel and then there is sort of a jagged more uniform
however piece of metal. That piece of metal is aluminum and it’s part of the window
trim. so what happened as the steel failed, it gave way and all of that load was sitting
mostly on that aluminum trim. In addition, because of the pushing of the brick away from
the building, we have no longer got any contact with the clips that are meant to hold
brick in plum with the base walls and so now we have that additional load pushing down
on all of this stuff and pushing out. That’s what caused the failure. We don’t know why
Sunday afternoon or best conjecture is that with some wet weather and then a week of
really nice or dry weather, something moved, whether it was one particle in the
aggregate in the mortar and that’s the location.
Commissioner Schlather asked why or where do we get the $200,000 number from?
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 22
Tom West stated that it is a pretty much guess estimate at this point.
Commissioner Schlather asked if it was based on conversations with the contractors?
Tom West responded no, it is not. We’re simply looking at this and saying what do we
imagine it would take to mobilize to get scaffolding in place and get masons up in the
air.
Commissioner Schlather asked if the $200,000 is that for the emergency aspect of this
or is that for the entire repointing project that you were talking about?
Tom West responded that we believe that it would be the ballpark for the complete
project.
Commissioner Schlather stated that this resolution authorizes $200,000 for emergency
repairs and yet what he heard you saying was that a portion of this would be emergency
and then a portion of this would be bid under the ordinary bid process, is that accurate?
Supt. Gray stated that this is a number that he gave City Controller Thayer and he had a
conversation with him today about limiting the amount of work that would be done and
complying with the State Law. What he told the City Controller at the time was that
actually until we take this apart, we’re not sure about what the magnitude of the work is,
but his point was that once we can determine where those break lines are, what we
need to do now, and without bidding and we can break out the other work where we
could use this experience, do drawings and come back. So, it could be a $50,000
emergency repair or it could be $150,000, but we didn’t know when we were drawing up
and we’re still not sure until we pull it apart.
Commissioner Schlather stated that we clearly need to do the work and he share the
concerns that Commissioner Romanoff has mentioned with respect to inspecting. The
Thomas Report is almost 20 years old, it’s 18 years old.
Mayor Peterson corrected him and said it’s 2002.
Commissioner Schlather responded good, then we have this wonderful resource. These
types of buildings, he is reminded and he thinks it was the Cayuga Bike building at State
and Geneva, that just popped out and he is grateful, even more so that under your
leadership we closed down the helix as opposed to waiting and testing for another
month or two. But, it is a good reminder about how important our infrastructure is and
how we need to be ever attentive. In terms of this particular resolution, my concern is
that we use only that part of $200,000 for emergency repairs that are truly emergency.
He does not want and he knows, sitting around this room, that everyone is committed to
not trying to get around the bid requirements as it pertains to non-emergency work. He
doesn’t think we say anything differently in this resolution because you clearly say not to
exceed $200,000 and you clearly say that it is for emergency repairs and you clearly
acknowledge that under the General Municipal law we are only allowed to deviate from
the bidding requirements as they pertain to emergency repairs. So he sees implicit in
this resolution the three breaks necessary, so he doesn’t need to be more explicit about
it, but he would be very disturbed if we found out down the road that this bidding
process was being used to perform non-emergency repairs or this bidding avoidance
process was being used to perform non-emergency repairs.
Commissioner Romanoff asked if staff weren’t getting two bids? You are getting two
bids, you’re just not using the process you usually use, but you are getting competitive
bids?
Tom West responded that was correct, we are getting, we did invite four contractors in
order to get as wide a variation as we could, unfortunately we only had two respond.
Commissioner Romanoff stated so you asked four and you got two. So, how far is the
bidding process drifting from what you usually do, the quickness of time.
Supt. Gray stated that we’re taking proposals, but doesn’t comply with the State Law.
He thinks that only once in his twenty years here, has he not even taken proposals, he
moved so fast and that was when State Street collapsed, washed out. It was by the
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 23
cemetery, the road collapsed. But, here we have a little bit of time and we asked for
proposals. We will use that to get us reasonable containment costs and then where we
can we will actually separate out and it has to be done with what needs to be done, if
that’s a fair way to state it.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that having seen the amount of work, she thinks that
this figure is realistic. If you have something left of it, wonderful, maybe go to escroll for
Phase II. She thinks that this is a fairly realistic figure, given the unknowns too.
Mayor Peterson stated that early on, she thinks Tom said, and then when it goes to
Council, in an emergency are we allowed to establish this through the Board or does
this resolution have to go to Common Council as well eventually, even for emergency
repairs.
Supt. Gray stated that the Board recommends and this would go to Common Council,
Council is the only one who can actually establish. The law actually and the City
Controller has to remind him, from time to time, we can actually per cost, if there is a
true emergency and people are in danger and various other things, we can
administratively incur costs, but we basically have to come back and have them verify.
Mayor Peterson stated that we’ll proceed and do work, and we can do that, but
eventually Common Council. Do we have to, let’s see, tomorrow she has a special
common council meeting is this something that she should add to the agenda or can we
wait till the June meeting?
Supt. Gray stated that he was actually hoping this would appear and he thinks the City
Controller was intending to keep going, the Board would recommend.
Mayor Peterson stated that there are two items on the Special Common Council
meeting agenda, but she also put on new business and old business because you
never know what happens around here. So, this should go to Council tomorrow?
Supt. Gray stated that he would request that.
Mayor Peterson stated okay. So, somewhere in here in one of the Resolveds it should
mention Common Council.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he had a quick question. He has heard now about
the Thomas Report which contains a survey of city owned buildings and so on, does it
include recommendations on what do to repair?
Mayor Peterson responded yes. Not only ranking them one, two and three, but the
repairs had dollar amounts and it also looked at space usage of all our buildings. She
knows very little about this. Alan Cohen shared this with her when she was mayor-elect
and indicated what that report was. She does not think that he had really dealt with that
or if anyone has officially dealt with that report.
Tom West stated that we had actually initiated a code compliance project that was
based upon the building commissioner, previous building commissioner’s inspection of
all city buildings and the city had allocated a very large amount of money for a number
of code compliance repairs across the board in many buildings. Some of them were like
the city hall renovation, so it included code updates for our electrical system and things
like that as a separate stand alone capital project. GIAC had a very large stand alone
capital project for improvements to their HVAC systems and the gym. Southside had a
very large project; others were captured as sort of small stand alones, some of which
only got accomplished last year. Improvements to the front entry of the police
department, the fire department at central station.
Commissioner Wykstra stated so it’s pretty specific then. He is thinking about, we’re
having a look at this, perhaps other buildings with similar design as Vicky was pointing
out and he was thinking how will it be determined how to treat them. For example, since
this building was designed and built, we have made tremendous strides in caulking for
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 24
example to protect such things and he is just wondering how we can methodically go
forward.
Mayor Peterson stated that one way Wade, is that right before this meeting she sent out
a draft of her message to department heads for capital project requests. She sent it to
City Controller Thayer to look at, but she thinks what she might add to it before she
sends it out to everybody is asking each department to look at the Thomas Report. She
thinks that they did look at it four or five years ago and some things have been done out
of the report, but maybe not necessarily the first and second choices. So, maybe it
would be advisable for all departments to take a look at that. That’s one way to get it
back up on the front burner.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she thinks that it would be very useful if we could
go somewhere here at City Hall and look at the report and get acquainted with it and
what some of the recommendations are and issues.
Mayor Peterson stated that as she mentioned to Vicky earlier, Ron, there is a whole
section on the golf course.
Commissioner Chapman stated that he had heard that and was hoping they could get a
look at that.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC
Goldberg Parking Lot – Resolution
By Commissioner Chapman: Seconded by Commissioner Romanoff
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the Goldberg Parking Lot item
at their May 17, 2006 Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Commissioner Schlather reported that there was meeting and a recommendation was
made.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel referred to an e-mail he sent out last Friday afternoon.
Commissioner Schlather stated that we’re actually taking over control of that lot this
week. We at least ought to get a nodding sense that we can go forward on what was
being discussed at this last meeting.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that one thing he wants to add is just before this meeting there
was a discussion on just allowing Goldberg to operate the lot till the end of the week,
until Saturday and City Attorney Hoffman and Planning Director VanCort are going to
talk to Mr. Goldberg about that.
Mayor Peterson stated that she has not been updated on what has happened.
Commissioner Jenkins asked if the rates were going to be kept the same as Goldberg
because it seems to work.
Mayor Peterson stated that is the proposal, it’s kind of become with the Green Garage
closed, premium undercover parking.
Commissioner Jenkins stated that she does see people parking there and they do pay
the rates and they don’t quibble.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated they do.
Commissioner Schlather stated, just so you are aware of it, the whole idea is at minimal
increase in staffing, we are simply going to move the staff from Lot D which is the Green
Street folks over to this particular lot. We all understand this is very temporary because
as soon as they start razing the Green Street facility, then there will be no parking
underneath, the only place there will be parking is at Lot D. Lot D has a very limited
number of spaces so on that we are recommending that it just be reduced to one hour
parking and it would be free, because we have one hour free parking. So, at Lot D for at
least this minimal period of time would be one hour free and then we intend to buy and
recommend the purchase of the pay stations and plug them into those locations.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 25
Commissioner Chapman stated that he noticed they don’t currently have accessible
parking places and that we are required by law to have them. Even for such a short
period of time is there someway that we can do it inexpensively.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that would be the first thing to be installed to code.
Commissioner Jenkins asked if that lot was open twenty-four hours a day?
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated no. It’s actually open, but they operate it. The hours vary during
the week, from like 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday, Friday and Saturday
they are open until 1 a.m., Sunday they are open noon to 6 p.m. We’ll drop the Sunday
hours, we’ll keep a full shift on Saturdays. Mr. Goldberg says Saturdays are very
profitable. We’ll drop the late night hours and have it operate the same as our other
downtown parking lots 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Commissioner Schlather stated that in this e-mal, he doesn’t think it’s $4.00/hour for 3
hours.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel said that he copied the rates down, zero to one hour is $1.25; one to
two hours is $2.50, two to three hours is $4.00, three to four hours is $5.50, four to five
hours is $7.00, each additional hour is $1.50. There is no maximum. There is a $10.00
overnight charge if somebody doesn’t have a ticket.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the point of it is and the whole idea is to get the pay
and display stations and we’re hoping to get as many as three or four of them and once
we get them, we can put them in there, we can put them in Lot D and then once those
lots are closed, we can put them in the downtown parking meter areas to get the public
used to using them. He was in Syracuse in Monday and he saw them and was envious.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Mayor Peterson noted that there is also Special Event Parking Report – Discussion that
needs to take place, that Asst. Supt. Ferrel had a piece on Hector Street and she also
wanted to know, this may or may not be a Power to Act, it might just be a discussion
item, but she was wondering if we could give ourselves Power to Act, if needed on
dealing with Notice of Defects in the City. Apparently, the Attorney’s office has been
working on this and has worked out a process in how to deal with them and Dan was
surprised that she didn’t know about it because her name is in there and she said well
Public Works has to know about this and Public Works does not know about it. So she
thinks that we need to look at it here and she doesn’t know if it’s something that needs
Power to Act, but she is asking for Power to Act in case it is something we need to vote
on. Notice of Defect is if you’re told there is a pot hole and somebody alerts the city,
how do we deal with it and what is the time frame that makes sense and so on.
Because it is affecting the City Prosecutor’s work. So that’s something they have been
working on in the attorney’s office.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that we have a big defect because there is no sidewalk
by Starbucks and people are walking on the grills on the trees and out into the street.
She would love to see us do something before it becomes a huge issue.
Mayor Peterson asked what she meant.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that they put the third or fourth chair right into the
sidewalk as there is no room there.
Supt. Gray stated that in fairness, Julie has apparently spoken to them about the fact
that they don’t have a permit and there are limitations on how much space you can
occupy.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the sidewalk is actually bigger, in other words it
bumps out because of the way we configure our streets at that corner and it is a much
wider sidewalk than it is along the sides of the street.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 26
Power to Act – Notice of Defect – Discussion/Possible Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Romanoff
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on Notice of Defect –
Discussion/Possible Resolution at their May 17, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Carried Unanimously
Special Event Parking - Discussion
Mayor Peterson stated that at a meeting earlier today, our special events meeting, we
talked about the Dragon Boat Festival and very briefly about Ithaca Festival.
Interestingly, the Ithaca Festival application, it says that the City will be collecting
parking fees at Seneca and Green garages. So it’s just interesting in there, it’s already
in their application. She is just mentioning it to the Board. If we were going to do that
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that we would have to print off parking tickets tomorrow, so she
doubts that it is going to happen at this late date. That report is coming up.
Commissioner Schlather asked if the dog park was coming back or are we going to be
doing something about that or not?
Mayor Peterson asked if he was here when the parks commission report was made.
They are going to do a hearing in a couple weeks because the Parks Commission has
been approached about the Festival Lands and they have been doing some work about
that. So they were going to have a conversation.
Commissioner Romanoff stated one other interesting point, a new suggestion for a new
area for a dog park that’s actually quite good. It’s part of the industrial park, Cherry
Street.
Mayor Peterson stated that if you go to the end of Cherry Street and keep going through
that land that the city owns, it’s quite interesting.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that it’s the first alternative that has come up that
seems reasonable.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he circulated a map last week about the fence for
the dog park because he got an e-mail from Alicia Plotkin saying on behalf of the dog
people, what is happening and he said he didn’t know, but send me something and I’ll
give it to the Board. So, he thinks that we probably ought to give ourselves Power to Act
if we intend to do something about it. If we are going to do something, we should do it
sooner rather than later. So, yes he will move power to act on this fence, he is not
saying he will support it but just so that we can give ourselves that opportunity for next
week.
Mayor Peterson stated that she thinks that if we’re going to put that in place then it’s
good to put it in before the boat season and the park season gets fully underway, if
we’re going to do it; or have them do it.
Commissioner Schlather asked that we invite TC Dog members to the meeting next
week as well. From his standpoint, he would like to hear some kind of report, he is
curious to know what happened last year from people other than the dog people.
Power to Act – Proposed Fence for Off-Leash Dog Area – Discussion/Possible
Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Romanoff
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the Proposed Fence at the Off-
Leash Dog Area – Discussion/Possible Resolution at the May 17, 2006 Committee of
the Whole Meeting.
Carried Unanimously
Commissioner Schlather asked if the Board could at least get a report on this or call the
State. The whole idea about who was going to mow it and maintain it and he is just
curious if that actually happened. The fencing, etc.
Mayor Peterson stated that she and Ron Stewart have been playing phone tag. He is
the new Finger Lakes Parks Director. She’ll try to reach him.
Board of Public Works – May 10, 2006- Page 27
Mayor Peterson stated that she got and perhaps we all did, an e-mail from Maria Coles
and she has seen it on other listservs that the group that wants the Red Bud Woods
plaque is expecting to be here next week for a vote she thinks. Has anyone else seen
that?
Supt. Gray stated that he did not indicate to her that we’d do anything more than put it
on the agenda.
Mayor Peterson responded on the agenda, okay. So that will be on the agenda next
week also for Committee of the Whole discussion.
Commissioner Schlather asked if there would be the proposed language in front of us.
Executive Asst. Grunder stated that she has a copy of and she thinks that we all got it at
one point.
Mayor Peterson stated that was language that we didn’t like very well.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that the last wording was not acceptable to the Board.
Mayor Peterson stated that she would check with Maria.
Executive Asst. Grunder stated that she gave her one that she thought was like the last
one.
Mayor Peterson asked when she gave it to her.
Executive Asst. Grunder responded last week.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor