HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2006-06-14BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. June 14, 2006
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (4) - Jenkins, Schlather, Dotson, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Deputy City Controller - Andrew
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Executive Assistant – Grunder
EXCUSED:
Commissioner Romanoff
Commissioner Chapman
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 that addition of the following items under Item 10 –
Water and Sewer as follows:
10A Power to Act on Chemical Bids - Resolution
10B Water and Sewer Easement at 115 Pearl Street - Resolution
10C Power to Act – Award of Bid for Digester – Resolution
No Board member objected.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Jane Marcham, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed
change on the 300 block of North Aurora Street to two-way traffic.
John Gutenberger, Town of Lansing, addressed the Board as Director of Community
Relations at Cornell University regarding the proposed Red Bud Woods plaque and
boulder at the northwest corner of West Campus, Cornell University. He requested a
postponement on the consideration of the proposed because the proposed wording is
factually inaccurate, it is unclear whether the boulder is in the public right-of-way, and it
sets a troubling precedent for use of public plaques. He read a statement that explained
the history of the land and noted that Robert Treman did not donate the land to Cornell
University.
John Schroeder, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board to present proposed new text for
the Red Bud Woods plaque which he also gave to Mr. Gutenberger. The next text
corrects the historical information as mentioned by Mr. Gutenberger above.
Richard Thaler, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board as representative of the owners of
115 Pearl Street, and the encroachment of this property onto the City of Ithaca water
and sewer right-of-way. The owners are attempting to sell the property and would like to
enter into an amended easement with the City for the newly discovered 4” of foundation
that has been found to extend into the right-of-way. He urged the Board to act quickly
on this request so that the scheduled closing can occur on June 21, 2006.
Elissa Wolfson, Town of Ithaca, addressed the Board in support of the proposed
Redbud Woods plaque. She also read a list of the native species that formerly occupied
the site for the Board’s information.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 2
Michael Latham, Town of Newfield, addressed the Board regarding the Redbud Woods
plaque and the various organizations that were involved in opposition to the current use
of the former Red Bud Woods area.
Brian Eden, Town of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding the wording of the Redbud
Woods plaque.
Elizabeth Sanders, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding Red Bud Woods and
the various native species that were destroyed its removal; and on behalf of some of the
faculty at Cornell University who were in opposition to the removal of the woods and in
support of the proposed plaque and boulder to commemorate the former Red Bud
Woods.
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC
Alderperson Coles responded to comments made about Red Bud Woods and noted
that she had spoken with many important community members who participated in the
demonstrations opposing the removal of the woods who expressed to her their feelings
regarding the removal of the woods.
Superintendent Gray responded to comments made regarding the proposal to convert
the 300 block of North Aurora Street back to two-way traffic.
Assistant Superintendent for Streets and Facilities Ferrel stated that he pulled the
drawing that he worked up a couple years ago out of the folder the other day because
he knew this would come up. There are a lot of sign changes, a lot of parking meter
posts and relocations to do to make it two-way.
Mayor Peterson stated that it would be good to do some of that research regarding the
conversion and the reasons because she would like the Board to see that pretty quickly.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he wanted to follow-up on that as well. He was
under the impression and he didn’t realize that we had just spaded this until the sewer
line was installed and that may very well be exactly what we had done, but he thought
we had done it indefinitely because at the time when the arguments were made
eighteen months ago, it seemed fairly, nobody could figure out a good reason why we
were switching it back to a two-way system and so his recollection is that the Board
seemed fairly comfortable with leaving it the way it was, based on the arguments that
had been made at that particular, he thinks it may have been Jane or somebody else
that showed up and made very similar arguments at a meeting of this Board. So, he
appreciate Jane coming here this evening because he did not realize that we were
planning on changing it back and certainly, understand the logic of Ms. Marcham’s
arguments. He can only speak for himself, but he would be very concerned about
changing it back until there is an affirmative action of this Board if that’s possible. Could
we somehow?
Mayor Peterson stated that is what Supt. Gray needs to research if there have been and
she thinks this goes back to the prior administration because if you look at that
intersection you will see there is already a light in place turned the other way in
anticipation of the directional change.
Commissioner Schlather stated that when that light was installed that was exactly what
prompted and not it’s coming back to him. He believes that Jane appeared and said the
light is facing north and we said “why is that?” and then it was well it was then place and
then we said that doesn’t make sense, put a bag over it in substance and that is exactly
what happened.
Mayor Peterson stated that she thinks the research has to go back a few years to
Common Council and the Board of Public Works because we need to see if it is by
resolution or what has happened with that. The other one, she is not even sure if
Cayuga Street was by resolution, there seemed to be some written agreements for
other economic development purposes that were signed by Alan Cohen. She does not
recall if that agreement had Aurora Street in there or not.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he agrees with that and stated no, he does not
believe that it did. He asked that we simply agree that even if there is an agreement or a
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 3
prior resolution that authorized the Aurora Street conversion that we make it clear that
that not happen until this Board re-examines the question? Is that, would that be
accepted protocol? Because he thinks there are good arguments for not doing it and it
seems to him, especially now that we have the experience of Cayuga Street and the
traffic tie ups that have been fairly dramatic and fairly persistent.
Mayor Peterson asked Supt. Ferrel what he was saying about the timing. If we talk
about this next week as the Committee of the Whole meeting?
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded that he had plenty of work to do for the crew. It can be
delayed; just the opportunity when the street is closed to do the work while we are
paving is better.
Supt. Gray agreed, and stated that he thinks most everybody sitting around this table
understands that if you’re going to make directional changes, you want them place
before August 15th. It will come back, the pattern should be established because it is
quite an influx and it’s not much fun to do later.
Mayor Peterson asked if the Board could put this on the agenda for next week and have
as many documents as possible from research. The Clerk’s office can certainly help in
finding those; it does not sound like anything will be done by next week.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she happens to differ from Commissioner Schlather
because she thinks that because we made the change on Cayuga Street, she agrees
more with Supt. Gray that we have to do this; unfortunate as it may be. We’re locked in
by the original decision made by our previous Mayor, but we can discuss this later. She
will hold her comments about the Red Bud Woods plaque until it comes up on the
agenda.
Supt. Gray stated that he would appreciate it if Commissioner Dotson did not attribute it
to him; all he was trying to explain to the Board was his understanding of why one got
us the other. He was not in favor of either so.
BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT:
136 Terrace Hill License Agreement - Resolution
By Commissioner: Seconded by Commissioner
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has a history of entering into license agreements for use
of City land where the proposed use is incidental to the adjacent private land use,
conforms with zoning, and reasonably fits within a one-year revocable license, and
WHEREAS, the City is currently reviewing this program with the help of state auditors in
order to update it and bring the fee structure into agreement with the auditor’s
requirement, and
WHEREAS, the City has a current request for a license to accommodate use of City
land by an existing parking lot at 136 Terrace Hill, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works grants the license for use of City land at
136 Terrace Hill under the usual terms and conditions and that staff is directed to create
the necessary fee calculation for use with the license agreement.
Supt. Gray stated that there are actually two resolutions on this, there is a fairly
simplistic one that he wrote and City Attorney Hoffman has gone to the trouble to
produce a lengthier one. You have on in your packet and you have a proposed
resolution on the table which City Attorney Hoffman provided to him yesterday which
addresses in more detail that the one Supt. Gray provided.
Mayor Peterson asked if the Board had just received the resolution from the City
Attorney today?
Supt. Gray responded yes.
Commissioner Schlather stated that since it does not appear that there is any
representative for that particular individual here and since we need the City Attorney for
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 4
the Pearl Street, could we flip those and just address that particular one? That seems
fairly perfunctory and we could; or maybe he already left.
Mayor Peterson stated that she thought he left.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he didn’t mean to pre-empt anyone else, but he does
have another obligation at 6:00 p.m. so if you could deal with that one in close proximity
to the one that is being considered.
Mayor Peterson asked the City Attorney that since the Board just received the
resolution if he could walk them through it.
City Attorney Hoffman responded yes, and that he didn’t see Supt. Gray’s and that was
probably the reason that he did his own because he didn’t realize that one had been
done, he apologized for any duplication. What he was trying to get on the record here is
that, he tried to identify the land in question which is a part of the Prospect Street right-
of-way adjacent to Jason Fane’s property which had been for many years and is
currently being used as a parking area and about eight spaces of the parking area are
within the public right-of-way. The surveyor estimated that the square footage that is
being used for parking which is in the public right-of-way is 1,650 square feet; he is not
sure that is an exact number; that was an estimate from him and he is pursuing getting
an exact figure and exact measurement for the land. In any event, Mr. Fane is in the
process of requesting a subdivision for his property and in the course of the process,
apparently he has been asked to get an official license from the City. For one reason or
another this land has been used for many, many years by Mr. Fane and his
predecessor without a license as far as we can tell. He is aware that this Board is in the
process of re-doing the calculation formula for license fees; however, given the
timeliness of the request and the fact that the subdivision is scheduled for final
consideration later this month, he is suggesting that the Board could grant a license and
use the existing fee calculation process, cumbersome as it is, to establish the fee for the
balance of this calendar year; with language in the license indicating that the City has
the right to change the fee for 2007. He also suggested that the calculation could be
based on fewer comparables than we have been using. Apparently we have been using
numerous comparables and that becomes very burdensome for staff to have to figure
what other properties might compare to this one. The only other non-standard inclusion
which he is suggesting is because there are two entrances to the parking area that
cross the public sidewalk that if there is any damage to the sidewalk that the licensee be
responsible for repairing the sidewalk. You could imply that from the standard language
of our licenses but he thinks it would be better to make it even more explicit.
Mayor Peterson asked if Supt. Gray had anything to add to that because his general
Resolved covers all of that; is that fine with you Bill?
Supt. Gray responded yes, the only item that he would draw attention to is the last item;
the last resolved which has how a revised formula gets created. He would just suggest
that there be a committee appointed by the Mayor as opposed to staff recommend what
the fee
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he put October 1st in there because the license
agreements now require that a new fee be articulated to the licensee by December 1st,
so this would give a two month cushion.
Mayor Peterson stated that your suggestion would be a combination of staff and/or
board or council members on that Bill? for calculating or re-addressing that fee - have
elected and/or board officials involved?
Supt. Gray agreed, depending on how it unfolds. If we can create a formula he thinks
that’s fine, he think we also will send a group on a search for he thinks there are a
number of unlicensed property uses; like this one which we have uncovered and we
might be able to combine how that unfolds and what timeline it involves. He said it will
get some attention from the licensees and others and the committee should be
prepared to defend it and understand it so that it is a rationale decision and not a staff
decision. It is developing as a policy.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 5
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he thought Supt. Gray intended that where it said staff
in the last resolved that it would be a sub-committee appointed by the Mayor; in the first
resolved, point number two the initial calculation has to be made right away so that
presumably would be sooner.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she is just getting this today and she is not sure
because she has not had a chance to read it carefully. She is curious, she sees when
she compares the City Attorney’s resolution with the memo we received from Lynne
Yost, she sees that there is one difference so she does not know how we are going to
address that, but the City Attorney’s resolution includes the square footage of 1,650 and
Lynne is estimating 2,800 square feet; they’re pretty different so
City Attorney Hoffman responded that they are and he doesn’t really understand what
the difference is. They surveyor, Al Fulkerson, provided the 1,650; what Lynne and he
had was a copy of a piece of the survey without any actual scale or measurements on it,
so she did the best she could working from that. Of course, Al was working from the
entire survey. He does have the word “estimated” in there, the estimate may be off or it
may not be, he does not know.
Commissioner Dotson stated that one suggestion is to strike it out?
City Attorney Hoffman responded that could be struck out; it doesn’t matter.
Supt. Gray stated that for his purposes that’s fine because it will be developed based on
a map, the property owner has the right to disagree with it. It should just be a
mathematical thing.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she was glad the City Attorney explained why he went
into more detail because when she saw that discrepancy it made her wonder about the
more detailed resolution and whether it might be better to stick with a more general one.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he had not seen her number when he put this in
there; again, he has no objection to it be struck out. It does not affect anything.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he knows he was not here last week, and he wasn’t
part of that discussion, and he is assuming there was a broad discussion about the
whole notion of whether just because someone comes to ask to rent City property we
will immediately say sure. Just curious, how big a parcel is the Green Street parking
garage that we just bought from a private individual – is that an acre?
Supt. Gray stated that it is roughly 400’ long and 100 feet wide, it’s about 4,000 square
feet.
Commissioner Schlather stated that if he came to the Supt. as a private citizen, I’ll pay
you $90,000 a year, you’re going to say okay, we’ll rent it to you? His point is that’s all
we’re saying here, we’re saying at $57.60 for this square footage, we’re saying to this
particular individual, if you’re willing to pay $57.60; whatever it is, if you’re willing to pay
this according to this fee, it works out to about $90,000 an acre. So, if somebody came
to us and said we’ll pay you $90,000 to rent the Green Street garage, are we under
some obligation to say yes?
Mayor Peterson responded no, not at all. These are revocable license agreements and
they are all done by license and she believes that each and every one of them has to be
evaluated separately. We’re not under obligation to rent this to anybody
Commissioner Schlather stated that is precisely his point.
Mayor Peterson stated that there is a special committee and the office of the State
Comptroller is here right now evaluating three areas of our budgetary practices and
license agreements are one of them. The committee is going to have to look at a range
of reasons for the license agreements and how they are charged. For example, the one
on Pearl Street, we have an encroachment, somebody’s stairs versus somebody who is
making money from city land for parking or dock rentals or so on are very different and
those are the kind of things that we will be working on.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 6
Commissioner Schlather responded right and that is his point. We have the right, as a
matter of policy, to say yes to some and to say no to others and it seems that as the
deciding factor typically is that if it is some minor issue such as a 4” encroachment or
steps that happen to spill into our right-of-way; or some other minor encroachment, we
say no, sure we’re not going to make you tear that down, that doesn’t make sense, we
will just plug it into our license formula and you can go ahead and pay us a few bucks a
year and we will be happy. He thinks there is a big difference between that type of
request which he thinks is a request for accommodation and a request for a commercial
profiting by using public property. His concern here is this is a whole sale, this is
someone basically coming on a much smaller scale and saying to the City we like that
land under the Green Street Garage and we’re willing to pay $90,000 a year to rent it
and so do it for us and we may say no, we have other uses for that or we don’t think that
is such a good idea or frankly we just don’t want to do it. His question was exactly that,
do we have to say yes, just because somebody comes to us and requests it and he
suggests that the answer is no, we do not have to say yes which then leads him to the
next point which is, he thinks that as a matter of policy we should decide between a
formula which would be useful in accommodating in other words the minor kinds of
things, versus formula which would be extremely, he thinks more market driven that
would be used when we are dealing what he would consider to be profit center
operations; whether it is renting boat slips in Cass Park; or basically saying we want to
use City land to put in eight parking spaces so that we can build a project of some sort
or another. His suggestion here is that we not act on this until we have figured that out
in a most fundamental sort of way.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he does not mean to intrude on your policy making
area, but just a couple of things to consider. The first is that this parking area already
exists, it’s not being created to accommodate any other development, and it’s a parking
area next to the carriage house which apparently is used for offices right now. He
doesn’t exactly know how parking is allocated on that entire site, but his understanding
is that it is coming up in the sub-division process because the planning board wants to
make sure that all required parking is provided. He would suspect that if the owner
cannot use those eight spaces that exist now, that are paved over, that the owner will
simply pave over enough green space on his site or some other nearby property which
he probably owns to create those eight spaces so, something to think about. The
spaces exist now, the City is getting no income whatsoever, the Mayor is going to
appoint a sub-committee to revise the formula such that it would take into account
presumably the commercial distinction that Commissioner Schlather is bringing up. But,
you may want to consider what the consequence will be of not granting a license for this
existing parking area.
Mayor Peterson asked if we could also declare it surplus and sell it?
City Attorney Hoffman stated that it is part of the street right-of-way; he does not know
why the street right-of-way is so wide right there.
Commissioner Dotson stated that was actually where she was going because she was
thinking about our street right-of-way and why we have street right-of-ways and
sometimes why they extend into what seems privately maintained property and then
that coupled with the fact that that is an extremely dangerous place to cross as a
pedestrian, we may want to revoke that license at some point in the future because we
may need it for a safe cross walk or to improve that street which is really not ideal. The
sidewalk on the other side of the street is non-existent; there are may problems with that
sidewalk. She thinks that if it is clear that it can be revoked, that would the crucial thing
we not declare it surplus and sell it.
Mayor Peterson asked either Commissioner Dotson of City Attorney Hoffman or John
Schroeder actually, she doesn’t know John if you want to participate in this conversation
as Chair of the Planning Board because she thinks is a
John Schroeder asked if they were discussing Prospect Street, eight parking spaces
next to the carriage house?
Mayor Peterson stated yes, it’s next to a cliff
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 7
John Schroeder stated that the Planning Board was presented with a proposal to sub-
divide that whole parcel into five smaller parcels and their concern was that each parcel
be conforming to existing zoning including providing sufficient parking for whatever
building is on the property, so they wanted the property owner to either provide the
needed parking for zoning on each parcel or have a legal document showing that he is
providing parking somewhere else in a way that meets the zoning code. The zoning
code states that it has to be within so many feet. Basically, they just want
documentation that each parcel with a building has legal access to the required parking
under zoning. So, that the sub-division is completely legal in terms of zoning.
Mayor Peterson stated that even though it is a revocable, annually renewable license
agreement, the Planning Board would consider that meeting the needs of parking for a
parcel?
John Schroeder responded that they did not discuss it; the assumption at the last
Planning Board was that it would be some sort of long-term document. They were
unaware of any proposal for a revocable license so they have not discussed it.
Mayor Peterson stated that they aren’t long-term.
City Attorney Hoffman stated no, well, the standard form that the City uses is revocable
on an annual basis. They are one year automatically renewable term, and they are
revocable on shorter notice than that and he doesn’t remember exactly what that was.
John Schroeder stated that the Planning Board’s expectation was that he would provide
the necessary parking on the upper portion of the lot; rather than on Prospect Street
because those Prospect Street spaces are much lower elevation if you know the site
than the buildings which are up on a hill. So, they are actually not very convenient to
the buildings at the top of the site, so their assumption was actually that those spaces
were probably serving his spaces somewhere else or that he was renting them to some
other landlord in the area like across the street or something and that he would provide
all necessary parking for the sub-division up on the upper portion; or at least that was
his assumption.
Mayor Peterson stated that she does not think those are used currently, she doesn’t
think she’s ever seen cars there.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she knew a few years ago they were rented, they
were labeled, but that was when the stairs were accessible, we also had a discussion
about the access between those lower parking spaces and really anywhere.
John Schroeder stated that there was some discussion of changing the property sub-
division line so that those eight spaces could serve the Carriage House and take care of
the required parking for the Carriage House, but Fane’s lawyer said that they preferred
not to do that probably because of the difference in elevation.
Commissioner Dotson stated the access and she thinks safety access.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he also wanted to ask, the materials that were
provided today included two bills, and one was at a rate of $57.00 a square foot which
yields $6,000 some odd dollars annual fee, the other one was at $144.00. He
understands the difference in terms of why it came to those two numbers, but which of
the two is the number that you folks intended to use?
Supt. Gray apologized for the confusion, he asked Lynne just to do a quick calculation
so that the City Attorney could see: A – how the formula worked, and B – a really round
number based on just the one property itself; not the way we are supposed to do and
how that would work. His understanding is that this property, if it were subdivided off,
that part is only extreme frontage on Prospect Street, we would use the lower cost and
as the City Attorney Hoffman and as we were discussing earlier, he thinks that uses
2,800 square feet or something and they are saying no, it’s not that big. Lynne just had
a drawing in front of her with no scale on it; she made an estimate of what it was so she
could use the calculation from the City Attorney. He is assuming that it will be the
smaller number and a smaller number than that, but it will still be in the thousands of
dollars.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 8
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would make his position very clear, he sees this
as a commercial use of city property for private gain and he does not feel the urgency
that others in this room may perhaps feel for this particular request. He sees a huge
difference between the need to accommodate a citizen who owns property and has the
day to day accommodate request, similar to the second resolution that we are asking to
consider here today. He sees a major difference between that and a request to in effect,
wholesale rent city property for commercial purposes and until we come up, in his view,
a more comprehensive and fair scheme to deal with those commercial issues, he is not
inclined to support any application for that kind of accommodation.
Mayor Peterson asked Supt. Gray about the other day when they were talking, and he
was talking about the license encroachment agreements and how many that he thought
the city had, did you have those divided out between commercial and stuff like the steps
encroaching a few inches.
Supt. Gray stated that there were 18 and all of them are commercial and actually in light
of what Commissioner Schlather said earlier, in those instances where somebody’s
front step comes down into the street right-of-way, we had been treating the non-
commercial incidental items as an encroachment and we granted that, revocable, but at
no cost, we have never issued a bill for, in the last five years that we’ve granted twenty
of those as property changes hands and somebody’s eaves overhang the street line or
the rest, we’ve taken those as incidental uses that are not commercial in nature that are
something we don’t need the property, they got there by some means and so we have
not issued bills for those.
Commissioner Schlather stated that when he uses the phrase commercial, he is not, in
other words, he recognizes that there are incidental accommodating actions that we
should take with respect to commercial property. In other words, it does not have to be
non-commercial property just to get this benefit. He is saying that there is a difference
between a large commercial type use and
Mayor Peterson stated that she believes we have some
Commissioner Schlather stated that he thought we had that because
Mayor Peterson stated that the docks alone is one of them
Commissioner Schlather stated that he believes that in the past we have, he thought
that we had, he knows that twenty years ago, we were in fact came up with a formula
where people were literally paying the few bucks a year, $20, $30/year because their
steps encroached and that kind of thing. You’re saying that in the past five years that
has been discontinued?
Supt. Gray stated that he is not aware of that and the twenty years that he has been
here; he hasn’t seen a bill like that.
Mayor Peterson stated that there are quite a few number of other things on the agenda,
and thank you Dan for all the work you’ve doing trying to put this together and she does
not know if anyone wants to move anything because this is a proposed resolution and if
there is no one going to move this and no one is feeling comfortable with that there is no
point in going on with more and more discussion and there is nothing on the floor and
there is nothing on the floor at the moment.
Commissioner Dotson stated that one thought she had is the Chair of the Planning
Board is here and now realizes and this is probably her responsibility to pass this on as
the liaison to the Planning Board that these licenses are year long and revocable and
we’re likely to change the fee structure and perhaps, we’re likely to change the structure
very soon, we could grant this license until the end of the year and then the Planning
Board has the responsibility to decide whether that fulfills zoning. It’s only until the end
of the year. She doesn’t know, she is just putting that out there, she is not moving it.
Supt. Gray stated that he would ask in light of the conversation, he thinks that
everything that Commissioner Schlather has said is reasonable, but he would just ask
that you go ahead and pass the resolution whether it’s his or the City Attorney’s. The
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 9
parking lot exists, the Planning Board is going to deal with the issue one way or the
other, and there is a use of that property. We can take it back, we can rethink it all at
anytime, it just seems like a reasonable thing to do, if for no other reason than the fact
that this has gone on so long and the city hasn’t gotten any return for its being there.
Commissioner Dotson stated that they have been using those parking spaces for some
time.
Supt. Gray stated twenty years that he knows of and we’ll have plenty of time to talk
about the whole issue; they are all valid points.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the only other point, he is quite willing to serve on
any sub-committee that might be convened to deal with the larger policy issue.
Mayor Peterson asked if anyone was willing to move this resolution, she thinks with a
couple of changes that we talked about, deleting the square footage amount, the
specifics of that and then in the last Resolved that staff, that there be a committee
established comprised of staff, Board of Public Works and Common Council members
make every effort to recommend a revised license fee formula by October 1, 2006.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was anyone willing to move anything or a Power to Act
because we are short two members, so she is just telling people that there five people
here and there must be four affirmative votes to pass something tonight; four out of five
votes.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she would move Power to Act because we may have
more information by then.
Power to Act on 136 Terrace Hill License Agreement - Resolution
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the 136 Terrace Hill License
Agreement at the June 21, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Carried Unanimously
Approval of Amended Easement Across 115 Pearl Street - Resolution
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Dotson
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca holds a 15’ -wide easement for water and sewer mains
across the property at 115 Pearl Street, and
WHEREAS, the owners of 115 Pearl Street, Daniel S. Baird and Heather E. Baird, in the
process of preparing for sale of the premises, recently discovered that a new survey of
the premises shows that the house thereon encroaches upon the City’s easement by
0.4 feet, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute
an encroachment agreement for the premises at 115 Pearl Street, which authorizes the
encroachment into the City’s easement equal to the area currently occupied by the
house at that address, as shown on the most recent survey thereof and contains the
usual terms and conditions, and any extra cost incurred by the City in maintaining its
lines due to this encroachment will be born by the owner.
Mayor Peterson stated that the Board does have a strangely marked up version that
she thinks Supt. Gray marked up and she wasn’t sure if the City Attorney had seen it,
she didn’t know if there was an agreement from Dan or Bill what version is being moved
here.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he had not seen Supt. Gray’s changes until now. His
only question is, in the Resolved, he thought the solution here, and the most logical
solution was to change the boundary of the easement to exclude the 4” or 5” where the
foundation encroaches into the easement. He sees that Supt. Gray has changed
exclusion to recognize the encroachment and he guesses, as a lawyer, that term does
not seem as clear.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 10
Supt. Gray responded that the City has a water main and a sewer main in this
encroachment and for reasons that he does not yet understand, not only is there is a
garage sitting on top of it
Commissioner Dotson asked if it was in the encroachment or in the easement?
Supt. Gray responded in the easement, there is a water main and a sewer main in the
easement. Somehow, in the intervening time, a house has gone up that apparently
encroaches on the easement that the city holds and then a garage got built on top of it.
We can live with it and have been now for a period of time, this is not the only spot in
the city where this has happened, but for his purposes there is no reason the city should
take on any liability associated with those encroachments and we actually have an
easement for this stuff. He thinks if you read through Asst. Supt. Whitney’s letter to Mr.
Thaler, what he tried to say was, his interpretation of the letter, that he had this kind of
situation, we’re fairly adaptive working in an urban environment, we believe we can work
with the property owner so that this won’t be a problem, but in the last paragraph he
said that this should not be a cost to the city. So, if have to slow down, we have to
shore the excavation, because of some foundation issue or something else that we
would not have had to do otherwise, that shouldn’t be a cost or a problem to us, so he
thinks that it is fine to recognize it and we now have a survey that shows it. He
personally would not recommend, he apologized, there is a letter floating around that
Asst. Supt. Whitney wrote, he will get you copies if you want, but the gist of it was that
we can work with it, there are methods by which we can even work under a building if
we can successfully repair things that get broken, we would only bill them for what the
additional cost might result from their main, so for his purposes, it is fine and if the
property transferred, they want to know legally that we are aware of it and we recognize
it and that’s fine. He personally, would not recommend changing the easement, there
was a mistake made, we think we can work around it, they encroach on it, but to grant it
now, we’re already in the ground and it seems to him that you’re taking on a liability you
don’t have to.
Commissioner Schlather stated that there was nothing in the material before them that
refers to a garage sitting on this encroachment, so can you talk about that Dan or
somebody.
City Attorney Hoffman stated than an encroachment agreement was executed between
the city and the former property owner in 1996 recognizing that the garage and shed
had been built some many years before so the owner of the property was allowed to
encroach upon the easement as of 1996.
Commissioner Schlather asked if that satisfied the lawyer’s in terms of the transaction
because there is this encroachment agreement.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that it satisfies them with regard to the garage and the
shed, the City can require to be removed at the owner’s expense at any time.
Commissioner Schlather stated and so, what Supt. Gray is saying is lets do this same
kind of thing for this 4” encroachment and the City Attorney is saying let’s redefine the
easement.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that removing a shed is a lot different than removing a
house and the foundation on the house.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he was just asking because from the lawyer’s
standpoint, the bank’s standpoint, will they be satisfied with what Supt. Gray is saying.
City Attorney Hoffman responded he did not know, he can’t speak for them, but that all
he is saying is that when the city negotiated this encroachment agreement in 1996, it
provided that the City could require the removal of the garage and the shed. He does
not think, it’s not practical to require the owner to remove their house.
Commissioner Schlather responded that he was not saying that we would, but the
question is
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 11
City Attorney Hoffman stated that if the bank sees that language, the bank will say we
can’t
Commissioner Schlather stated that was why he was asking, do we know that?
City Attorney Hoffman responded that would be his guess. He gave one other piece of
historical information, in looking at the original easement, he sees that the starting point
of the easement was measured from Pearl Street, this is not a corner property and at
that point they used a figure, he is going to call it 150’ for our purposes, that was what it
was. There was no survey, this was in 1940. Now, the deeds talk about 149.6’, he
thinks what happened, he does not know when the house was built, it may very well
have been built before 1940, he thinks what happened was we got more precise
between 1940 and the 1990’s and it turned out that the house was 4/10 of a foot into the
easement. He does not think anything moved or whatever, he thinks that the measuring
got more precise and through no fault of anybody’s suddenly the house was in the
easement by 4/10 of a foot. He does not know whether we know where the pipes are,
but he kind of doubts that they are under that 4/10 of a foot.
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that they are not.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she had two questions, one is the 4” and she
understands the legal liability, but she thinks recognizing the scale of what we’re talking
about is important. The other question she has for the City Attorney is you’re
uncomfortable with the word “recognize” in Supt. Gray’s scenario
City Attorney Hoffman stated that when he says uncomfortable, from the City’s point of
view, of course, we might want to have the right to require them to remove their house,
but is that what we want to do, is that fair in this situation.
Commissioner Dotson responded that what she heard Supt. Gray saying was that we
did not want to have the liability of taking extreme engineering measures to not have,
we need to dig in the ground, we don’t want to have to go to great lengths that we
wouldn’t have to if we had our standard easement, so is there language that you are
more comfortable with that addresses Supt. Gray’s concern, because it is such a small
thing, it seems like we should be able, she wants the two of them to come to agreement
because she does not think substandard
City Attorney Hoffman stated that she was talking to the wrong person in a way, he is
not representing the buyer, the seller or the lender and those are the people who are
going to have to deal with this and then attorney’s for lenders can be very strict and he
knows that.
Commissioner Dotson stated that is not what she is asking, Supt. Gray’s language
recognized the encroachment into the easement, is there different language that
conveys the same issue that we would not be liable for extreme engineering measures.
That’s what she is asking.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that the real question is when the amended easement is
drafted, is there going to be language in there that says that the encroachment has to
be removed in a situation. If there is no language requiring the removal of the
encroachment then it might be allowed to be let go.
Commissioner Dotson stated that that is not what Supt. Gray is requesting, she will let
Supt. Gray speak for himself, but her concern in response to what Supt. Gray is saying
is that we not be liable for additional costs based upon this encroachment which is very
different from removing the house.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that the lines are not under the house, apparently we
know that right now so the only question is would we want to put lines under the house
for some reason.
Commissioner Dotson responded no, we both know that when you have to dig a hole to
work on lines, you don’t just dig a hole straight down, you dig, you have to shore it up,
you have to use equipment so that is a reason we have wider easements is so that we
can actually work comfortably in those areas.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 12
City Attorney Hoffman stated that if you want to be sure you didn’t dig out that entire 15’
then you would have to require the removal of the foundation of the house. You’d have
to be allowed to require that.
Commissioner Dotson stated that perhaps we can’t resolve this week.
Supt. Gray stated that for him, this was fairly simple, that we should not take on liability
that’s not ours, he had the benefit of reading Asst. Supt. Whitney’s two letter that we
can do a lot of stuff to make this work, but you know it should not cost us anymore.
There are ways to do it. If it turns out that the basement foundation, which, if it has a
basement, happened to be lower than the pipe is in the ground, he can probably dig a
hole right next to the basement, some of the basement would get exposed, but as long
as he does not go below the foundation, the house is not at risk and he can work on the
pipe. He does not know that sitting here. He just and in so, his object was not to tell the
homeowner that they would have to remove the home, there is nobody at Water &
Sewer who wouldn’t set out to figure out how to leave the house intact, but get the job
done, but if it ended up costing us more money, is it appropriate because somebody did
that? He hadn’t thought about City Attorney Hoffman’s point you know that it could just
be an accuracy issue that the point of 4’ occurred somewhere between 1940 and you
know the center line of the road. If you want, at this point, he guesses we can go back
and get a little more information, if the basement is lower than the pipe, then fine, you
know you can give the property owner what they need to get their lending, we can let
the corner of their garage protrude in and it’s not likely to cost the city anymore money
and we can make it work. He just can’t say that sitting here.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he thinks what he would prefer to do is pass the
resolution along the lines that you have proposed which is that we, he is not sure it’s
even an amended easement, he thinks what we are talking about is authorizing an
encroachment agreement into the easement similar to what was done with the garage
for this 4/10 of a foot and reserve, he does not know how we can do this procedurally,
but reserve a power to act to revisit the issue next Wednesday in the event that that
does not work. He wish counsel had stayed because then we could have found out
whether that would work, but given that he did not stay, we pass that, give it to them
and say this is what is done, if the bank’s lawyers come back and say, no, no, no, that
just is not going to work, then we’ll revisit the issue next week, but if they say it’s fine
then we have not sacrificed any of the principles that Supt. Gray has, he thinks,
articulated here in an eloquent sort of way and the property owner has been satisfied.
He does not want to put this off, he thinks that it is important to get it decided.
He would move the whereas, do you want me to read it in?
Mayor Peterson responded yes, read it with the suggested wording slowly
Commissioner Dotson asked Commissioner Schlather if he wanted to move Power to
Act
Commissioner Schlather responded oh, well and if – okay that’s the resolution and then
he would ask that we pass a separate resolution that would give us power to act
contingently in the event that that does not solve the problem. But, he thinks that the
bank is going to need this resolution in order to act.
Mayor Peterson stated contains the usual terms and conditions, we had talked about
the removal of a building, for example, is that what you mean as the usual terms and
conditions?
Commissioner Schlather responded we would ultimately give ourselves the right to
remove; obviously we are not going to do that, but the whole point of this is to he thinks
that Supt. Gray is right as a matter of principle if we don’t need to give up something, in
order to solve the problem then we shouldn’t give it up and so let’s try to solve the
problem without giving up that particular piece in this particular issue and in essence
what they are getting is, the bank would be getting an encroachment agreement similar
to what it already apparently has and has been satisfied with, with respect to a garage
so it worked for the garage, it ought to work for the house.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 13
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he should just tell you that he does not know whether
the issue is with the lender or with the buyer’s attorney, he does not know that. The
discussion he had with the seller’s attorney indicated that this issue had complicated the
question of the price of the house so it may or may not involve a lender, but it appears
to involve the buyer and an easement that allows the city to remove the house could
also raise issues about the price of the house which is not really our concern, but just so
you know what he knows.
Supt. Gray stated that particular clause could be re-written, if the intent is that we don’t
want the house removed but we don’t want to write it so that any costs that are incurred
in order to preserve the house while working on lines would be borne by the property
owner. It certainly is much smaller, the corner of the house, is 5” into that easement,
we’re not going to take it down and he does not mind admitting that, but the point is that
they encroach on something that we have and it shouldn’t be at our cost. So, just make
that statement.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would consider that a friendly amendment.
However, you want to draft it.
Mayor Peterson asked Commissioner Dotson if she was fine with that since she
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Dotson agreed
Mayor Peterson stated so the usual terms and conditions modified.
City Attorney Hoffman stated “any extra cost incurred by the City in maintaining its lines
due to this encroachment will be born by the owner”
The Board agreed to that language.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Mayor Peterson asked Commissioner Schlather if there would be a need for a Power to
Act?
Commissioner Schlather responded that he would hope not, but just to cover ourselves
because he would not want to have to wait until July so why don’t I just move a
resolution for contingent Power to Act on this particular issue in the event
Commissioner Dotson asked how about a Power to Act if any other issues come up with
regard to this.
Power to Act - Approval of Amended Easement Across 115 Pearl Street -
Resolution
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Schlather
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on any other issues that might
come up with regard to the Approval of an Amended Easement Across 115 Pearl Street
at the June 21, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Carried Unanimously
Redbud Woods Plaque - Resolution
WHEREAS, members of the community have approached the Board, requesting
permission to place a granite boulder with a memorial plaque dedicated to the former
Redbud Woods in the right of way for University Avenue at their cost, now therefore be
it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works grants permission for a monument
dedicated to Redbud Woods consisting of a granite boulder on City property,
approximately 18 inches on a side, with a plaque based on the following wording
submitted June 7, 2006, and that this permission is contingent on a final review and
approval of the wording, the boulder size, and the proposed placement on University
Avenue by the Board’s Chair.
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 14
Supt. Gray stated that the resolution he wrote does not contain the wording, it might be
useful, but he guesses he should tell the Board that he wrote the resolution assuming
that, he didn’t know which one you wanted in, so this is just for you to work on.
Commissioner Schlather stated that in all of the preceding discussions about this
particular issue there has always been a request that there be discussion between
somebody at the higher levels of the City and he doesn’t know if it was going to be you,
Carolyn, or someone, with the property owner to A: alert them to this problem and B: to
find out if there was possibly someway to make this more of a positive kind of
experience, has that happened?
Mayor Peterson asked if he felt the Board directed her to do that?
Commissioner Schlather responded that he didn’t know if there was a direction, he just
thinks we talked about it several times and asked that
Mayor Peterson stated that she was just curious to see if she was remiss in something
official from the Board. She was just wondering about that. After we received, at the last
meeting, she was only able, she doesn’t know when she forwarded the last wording to
Cornell because she did leave town for a conference on Sunday and she just got back
around 4 pm this afternoon. She did, indeed, forward the language to Cornell, there
were some e-mails, she has not responded to the e-mails, and she has not had a
conversation with people from Cornell thus probably causing John Gutenberger to come
tonight to talk to the Board. So, she has not done that except to forward the proposed
language from last Wednesday’s meeting.
Commissioner Schlather asked if there had been any conversation between anybody in
the City administration and anybody at Cornell about any aspect of this. He stated that
there have been a number of issues raised about rights of way and
Mayor Peterson stated that there certainly has been conversation, but there has not
been a working type of discussion such as is there a wording that Cornell, as property
owner, would be amendable to and nothing like that has occurred, she does not believe,
would that be accurate?
Alderperson Coles stated that she had a point of information. She really does not know
what it is you’re referring to; she does not ever remember that discussion coming up at
the Board of Public Works, unless it happened in her absence. She just does not
remember that Ray.
Commissioner Schlather responded, he is sorry and that it may have been in your
absence, but this came up several times.
Executive Grunder stated that Alderperson Coles wasn’t there and that there were like
three things that needed to be talked about, the City needed to talk to Cornell, there was
the verbiage, the boundaries.
Commissioner Schlather said he was sorry but that it did come up, but God knows I’m
getting old and I forget things.
Mayor Peterson stated that she was out of town occasionally looking at her e-mail; she
was really busy at her conference and she believes that she suggested to Cornell that if
they had any questions to talk to Supt. Gray in her absence. So, she does not know if
there was any contact.
Commissioner Schlather asked Supt. Gray if there had been any contact?
Supt. Gray stated that at certainly the level of checking the wording to make sure that
they had a copy of it, he followed up on the survey and he collected some information
related to the survey that in fact that the parking lot would be well inside either parties’
discussion about what might be the street line, that was when he found out the Cornell
really still had an open question in their mind about where the street line was, but in
either case, he had enough information to know that what had been discussed as the
original boulder would be inside either parties’ private property line, whatever that would
have been and then at that point that discussion, it’s his understanding that the working
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 15
group had already decided that the boulder in question really was not suitable for
mounting a plaque. They were recommending that they would come back with a granite
boulder which he gave some rough dimensions to because we hadn’t really discussed
it, he pulled out a rules and he can’t remember 18” or 20” roughly cubed was what he
assumed we would be talking about and so that much discussion went on. But there
certainly has not been any discussion about here’s a proposal, do you have a counter
proposal, is there anyway that the administration at Cornell would consider this
something that would go up. Actually, in response to his discussion, John basically
came back and said you know now he’s speaking for John and John can speak for
himself, that there were a number of questions that Cornell wanted to look at, they
wanted to see, because they didn’t agree on where the property line was or the street
line was, that they didn’t agree with the wording at the time because the last wording
was not factual and there were a couple of other questions which he has not had a
chance to read in detail, but he suspects John has addressed those in his letter.
That was the level of discussion that he had and that was as high up as he could go in
the administration.
Alderperson Coles stated that she wished she had been at the meeting where that
discussion took place. While she understands how desirable it is to try to reach
agreement and hopefully, you know, Cornell and the group that worked to erect this
plaque would agree. She would say that given the history that has taken place around
the woods, she would consider it a incredible imposition, if what you stated, Ray, were
to mean that in order for this plaque to go up, we, the group, and the community were to
have to be obligated to get approval from Cornell. That would concern her enormously,
so she just wanted to clarify.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she is a little troubled by the letter from Cornell, partly
because she has seen the process, she has not been at all the meetings where we
have discussed this, but she has seen the process, and she has seen the evolution of
the request for the wording for the plaque and she really thinks that the three issues
have been addressed, the proposed wording has been changed in response, the issue
of public right of way, we had a survey in front of us last week, that we discussed areas
that would be within the public right of way, and we discussed the precedent for the use
of public plaques, there was even an example about whether one of the board members
cut down a tree would it, a tree that was well loved, and she thinks that the resolution
that we came to is that is why there is a city wide body and if we feel that the issue has
enough community merit that it’s our right to choose to place a plaque or a naming of a
bridge, or other historical notations. So, she thinks we have gone through this quite a bit
and she would move the Resolved, but she will wait until a few more comments are
made, just in case we would like to make changes to it, but she thinks we should move
forward on it. She is not sure if the wording needs to be included here now that we’ve
seen it, she would be happy to, if the Mayor and Supt. if other issues that we’re not
aware of today come up, she would be happy to revisit it then, but she thinks that we
are aware of the major issues and she looks forward to moving forward.
She’ll wait until others have commented, but she would be happy to move it.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he just wanted to respond to Maria’s statement, or
question, he does not think that the spirit or the words of that meeting had to do with
seeking Cornell’s approval or making it contingent upon Cornell’s approval, but he
thought that we were rightfully talking towards seeking a mutual respect and trying to
have some sort of dialog there, that that was the spirit of the meeting as he understood
it.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he was not here last week and so he was not privy
to that discussion, but the preceding discussion which he believes would have been the
middle of May when this was discussed, he knows and frankly going all the way back to
a year ago when this was first raised and it may not have been the very first meeting,
but some subsequent meeting, but almost every time this came up the question was
asked, by one member or another of this board, is Cornell, has Cornell as property
owner, been made or put on notice of this. Why, because as a matter of fundamental
fairness, if a property owner has made a lawful use of its, or his or her property, and the
City decides that it is unhappy with that lawful use for whatever reason, whether it’s a
good reason or a bad reason, at least as a matter of fundamental fairness, the property
owner ought to be put on notice that they are about to be public pilloried by the
installation of some permanent sign that takes issue with whatever happened there. It
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 16
just seems fair, that’s all, and so we kind of and he remembers when we talked about
this a long time ago, there was some talk about you know maybe if we could sit down at
the higher levels, there would be some communication with Cornell in a way that would
at least let them know what’s going on, given them a chance to weigh in on this thing
and it doesn’t, absolutely and he echoes what Wade said, in no way, shape or form
implies that their approval is a prerequisite or that somehow by asking them for their
input that we are foreordaining a particular result. His concern is simply a matter of what
he would see, is akin to due process, and that is that people who own property and who
use it in a way that is permissible, should not necessarily, and he is not saying that it is
absolute, but should not necessarily be subject to some sort of public censure for that
use. Now, if as a matter of public policy, what happened on that property, be it blood
shed, or arboricide whatever may have happened on that property is of such
significance in the community whether it’s a shanty town, or its’ the Red Buds or it is the
1969 or 1968 take over of the Willard Straight, whatever it might be, if it has such
historic and social significance that it warrants some public acknowledgement which is
not available or is not willingly provided by the institution, which occasioned it, then he
thinks we do have the right for all of the public policy reasons that have been set forth
here, we do have the right, you know what we’re going to put up the monument. We’re
not going to allow the murder of hundreds of people in the zocolo in Mexico City to go
unrecognized because the Mexican government refuses to acknowledge it, we’re not
going to allow Tiananmen Square to go unrecognized because the Chinese government
refuses to acknowledge it. He means, he understands that concept, but he is also a
strong adherent to due process and due process includes at least letting the private
property weigh in on whatever that controversy is. So, here we are today, and he thinks
that has been expressed and he knows he has expressed it previously, and every time
he had thought that somebody, frankly if you want it, I’d be glad to do it, but he thought
somebody was going to talk with Cornell and let them know. Apparently,
Mayor Peterson interrupted and said that she believes that she has regularly let Cornell
know, but she would say at levels you speak of, but we have not discussed it per say in
writing something together or, she does not think she has ever asked Cornell is there a
plaque that you would accept. She thinks, John, you know I have monthly meetings with
Cornell officials along with two other council people and the purpose of those meetings,
they are many fold, but one of them is to apprise each other of issues that are in
common or that we would like to know about ahead of time and this has always been
one of them, and in fact some members of the public have misunderstood her role as
Mayor with this group and have chastised me for even, she felt anyways, of even
mentioning it to Cornell so she does feel that she has mentioned it to Cornell, but we
have not had it on as an agenda item as we do with many of our other agenda items as
something to work on together, and we have never done that. She feels that she has
whenever the issue has come up to Board of Public Works or there have been words
that have been proposed, she feels that she has transmitted them to proper folks up at
Cornell. She does not know if you would agree or not agree Gutie, but I feel that I’ve
done that.
John Gutenberger responded that was accurate, yes.
Mayor Peterson further stated that she has not had a, they haven’t really discussed it
per say.
Commissioner Schlather stated and so is it your assessment and he does not want to
put you on the spot, Carolyn, anybody, is it the assessment of the City who the folks
who have had these contacts with the property owner, is it the assessment that no
matter what kind of olive branch is extended there has been, it’s simply not going to
elicit any kind of positive response.
Mayor Peterson responded that she does not know. She can’t answer that, she knows
that the previous language before this one was not acceptable, she thinks that would be
accurate to say; and then this is new to all of us, the letter today.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he does not think it has to be acceptable, he is
asking, in other words, he guesses he was wondering whether and maybe he just lives
pie in the sky or something, but he was kind of hoping that maybe Cornell would
recognize that this is an important issue, that it has social prominence, and
consequence and that frankly they would put up their own acknowledgement and pay
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 17
for this. He understands that that sounds fatuous, but the point of this is, they won the
war, they can at least be gracious about it, you know.
Commissioner Dotson stated that Ray in response to what you’re suggesting, we do
have comments from Cornell at this point,
Commissioner Schlather responded, yes, we just received them.
Commissioner Dotson stated that what is troubling to her is, she will be blunt, the focus
on very small issues, that seem to be resolved and she believes have been resolved by
the lack of acknowledgement of a new version of the wording, she thinks we tried and
honestly reading this wording, she thinks that it is very moderate, that she does not
think that it is very factual and that alot of thought has gone into it in the sense of
making it very factual and not inflammatory, she at this point she would move our
resolution. She thinks we have done the due process that Ray suggests.
Commissioner Schlather stated that what he was wondering would be whether we could
give ourselves Power to Act until next week, we’ve just received this today, it would give
us a chance, he still does not understand where this thing is going to be placed or
where the boulder is going to be placed, it just says in a right of way, but he is not sure
where it is and
Alderperson Coles interrupted to say it was her turn
Mayor Peterson stated that Ray was just responding to Jennifer’s comments.
Alderperson Coles stated that she is really troubled by your characterization Ray of
what is actually in the text for this plaque. If anything, quite frankly I read this as a
possibility of giving this very sad experience a resolution, and so she would hope that
you would give that text an open minded reading because to call this public pillaring is
really a total miscalculation of what is there. In addition, she finds that your insistence at
this point, that there be the kind of communication that you are advocating for winds up
putting the onus of the responsibility for that on the group that has along been fighting
Cornell. Cornell knew that this was going on and we just heard that they did and they
did not make an attempt at contacting the group. For this Board to now, insist that that
kind of communication go on, again, she thinks it winds up putting the responsibility for
all of that in the wrong place because both parties knew it and if it did not happen, what
the ultimate outcome is that after a long, long, long time of this group asking that
something be done, we are now saying again, we are now going to do it again, for a
reason which at best, both parties might have been responsible for and that is the dialog
did not take place and she finds that troubling.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he had a quick question for clarification, are you
calling, Ray are you calling this version a public pillaring or were you referring to an
earlier version or this?
Commissioner Schlather stated that his concept, we just got this version here this
evening so he is not necessarily saying this is a public pillaring but he thinks the notion,
that no matter what language we use, there is an implied criticism of the use of this
property and therefore, he is trying to take the issue out of this particular episode and
discuss it in a larger context which is the context of as a matter of fairness, if the body,
the community governing body, whatever it is, wishes to take issue with the lawful use
of somebody else’s property, whatever it is they have done, as a matter of fairness
shouldn’t the property owner, who is going to be subjected to that level of criticism, that
implied criticism, whatever you want to call it whether it’s mild or harsh shouldn’t that
property owner be given an opportunity, a formal and fair opportunity to be heard on this
and to be a part of this process? He, until, and he has raised that repeatedly in these
discussions, most recently whatever it was roughly a month ago, and tonight, he has
gotten an answer. The Mayor has said that she has brought this up periodically and he
does not know what the property owner’s reason is for not doing this, but it seems to
him that if we put this off for one week, to give, it does not put the onus on the group,
the group, he is not asking the group to talk to Cornell, he is saying the City should talk
to Cornell and find out why it is. He means, they’ve given us a very long letter, they say
postpone it, they claim that the right of way is not properly established, frankly, our
resolution does not say where it is going to be placed, our resolution, the last he heard,
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 18
they were talking about putting it out in the triangle in the middle of the intersection. So,
he guesses his point is, we are coming inexcerptedly to a point of a vote, frankly, he
thinks in the long run he thinks it is probably appropriate to have some
acknowledgement, but that is not his point. His point is, maybe he is a slave to process,
but he feels that if we’re going to do it for this particular case, we’ve got to be able to
make sure that whatever precedent we’ve set is a precedent that we can live with in
other cases down the road.
Alderperson Coles said she has a point of information question, she thought that for this
meeting, we were not deciding location, we were not deciding the boulder, we were
deciding, or this group was deciding the text of the plaque.
Commissioner Schlather responded, no, it doesn’t say that at all. It says we grant
permission for a monument dedicated, consisting of based on the wording submitted,
and that this permission is contingent, the only this is that it is contingent on final review
and approval by the Board’s chair. The Board will never see this again.
Mayor Peterson stated that there is another meeting coming into this room in about
eight minutes of which she is supposed to attend. John, I see your hand up, but I am
reluctant to call on you at this point in the meeting so.
John Gutenberger stated that he just wanted to correct the record that Cornell was
responding to the information provided to them, the resolution that the Board now has in
front it is provided to us by Mr. _____ so their letter is responding to what they had
previously.
Mayor Peterson stated that the she does not feel that you’re ready to; she does not feel
you’re going to have a second or again, we have a situation of five people here and you
will need four votes at this time and it sounds like there is more. She is not sure what
steps people would like to take or would like me to take, but sounds like there is desire
to do a couple more things before next Wednesday by some members.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he would just comment that he thinks there will be a
plaque, there has to be a plaque, this community loved those woods, a lot of people put
alot of passion and effort into saving them and the community has every right to put a
plaque on public property and he is very much for that and thinks very much that that
should happen. If there is still some questions and we need another week to work on it,
think about it, give Cornell further chance to respond, I like what Ray said the idea of
Cornell being gracious in victory and perhaps coming forward and doing something and
recognizing something that the community felt about those woods, it’s never too late for
Cornell to do that. He is happy to give it another week.
Supt. Gray stated, by way of running out of time, and the agenda there is nothing that
we probably can’t pass on to next week here at this point, so whatever decision you’re
going to make and he just, the only thing about the agenda, he would just like to
comment on the Green Street Parking garage as it warrants a report.
Mayor Peterson stated that she would like a few sentences remark from Asst. Supt.
Ferrel on the parking validation since tomorrow was our initial end date for having
something.
Supt. Gray stated that’s fine, he knew you were running out of time
Mayor Peterson stated we’re very much running out of time or we could adjourn to the
second floor, we’ve done that before and finished the meeting so the new meeting can
come in.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she believes the second floor is taken, she is sure the
other group would be willing to wait.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was any motion at this time?
Power to Act on Red Bud Woods Plaque - Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 19
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the Red Bud Woods plaque at
the June 21, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting.
Alderperson Coles asked the question is what should happen between now and next
week?
Commissioner Schlather asked if she was asking what he would want, may I respond?
Commissioner Schlather stated 1: I would like to know exactly where this is going to be,
2: I would like to know the exact wording of the proposed document and he now has this
here today, 3: I would like to know what the, in other words, if the location, if there is any
dispute whatsoever about the location about the disputed boundary, in other words is it
proposed that it be placed where there is absolutely no question of city right of way or is
it being proposed to be placed in a place where there is a disputed boundary and if it is
a disputed boundary I would like to know what or how strong the position is on that, 4:
finally, he hesitates to direct the Mayor to do anything, because she is the Mayor and he
does not have that authority, but he would ask the Mayor as Mayor to reach out to
whatever levels of administration at Cornell that she believes is appropriate so that
down the road, Cornell cannot say with any level of credibility that somehow they were
not given proper notice of this action and that they were not given an opportunity to fully
respond and be a part of it, so he would like the Mayor to reach out and in essence say
look, the community is very strongly interested in doing something with respect to
recognizing this dispute and the blood that was shed over this issue, and that we invite
you to take a proactive, gracious response, in other words we want to give you that
opportunity. I don’t know, but at least then he will feel that due process, which is the
mother of justice has been served.
Alderperson Coles stated that she does not quite know how that information could
possibly be part of the decision for next week, because first of all, the Mayor has not
agreed to that, so she does not know what the Mayor would want to do, she is not
willing.
Commissioner Schlather stated that was why he didn’t ask her, that’s why he asked the
Mayor.
Alderperson Coles stated that what she would say that what we would want to know
however is what would satisfy you because if we don’t get a report from the Mayor that
would satisfy you, then the question is then what happens.
Mayor Peterson stated and then Ray decides what he wants to do.
Commissioner Schlather stated and he will vote on it, but at least, he thought – it
doesn’t matter. He thinks he has made himself clear, he is only one person on this
Board and you’re asking me what I want, that’s what I want.
Mayor Peterson stated that she was the Mayor who decided to keep on with the
lawsuits and the appeal at that time and Cornell knows her position on the parking lot
and how she feels about the parking lot. She still struggles a bit with the language for
the plaque, I still struggle with that and she is going to think about that a little bit more
and who would I direct that to? Maria are you kind of a go-between so?
Alderperson Coles responded that she would be glad to
Mayor Peterson stated that she just wanted to say that for all the stands that she has
taken for the last five years or so about this, she is still having some struggles with the
language and just wanted to say that with this opportunity this evening, since it looks
like there will be a vote to delay another week. Of course, we’ll have two more people
here and who knows what direction the discussion will go then, because Ron and Vicky
are not here today.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (4) Schlather, Wykstra, Jenkins, Peterson
Nays (1) Dotson
Abstentions (0)
Board of Public Works – June 14, 2006- Page 20
Carried
Mayor Peterson asked for two quick reports, one on the Green Street Garage and one
on that parking validation/discount and you both have 98 seconds.
Supt. Gray stated that the Green Street Garage, he had set up a resolution just to have
the Board direct staff to proceed, they actually have the power to do that, we have not
finished bidding it which is what we had set out to do and in fact we are setting out to try
to get bids. It’s just to inform you that if you’re uncomfortable with that, he would
appreciate comments now, but basically, staff will bring that topic back as they get more
information.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that the server for the parking system has been installed
downstairs, the IT department is still working with Choice One as far the communication
drops. He checked on that before this meeting and Alan Karasin was actually on the
telephone when he walked into their office, with Choice One. Those connections have
not been made yet, as soon as they are, we should be on line to start processing or
training our Chamberlain staff so we can start processing tickets to be sold to the
merchants for discount validations.
Mayor Peterson asked if that would be within a week or? She further stated that we had
guesstimated no later than the 15th she thinks of June in our resolution and that is
tomorrow.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded that he believes that it’s probably going to take another
couple of weeks. They had some delays because of decisions on how the
communication was going to made and that delayed some equipment installations and
contracts with Choice One.
Supt. Gray asked if they could adjourn this meeting to next week?
Mayor Peterson responded yes, we could adjourn the meeting until 4:45 p.m. on June
21, 2006.
Commissioner Schlather asked if she wanted to do that. He stated that there were four
items right.
Supt. Gray stated that he has five that he would like Power to Act.
Commissioner Schlather stated why don’t we do an authorization for the five by Power
to Act for the Five and then we don’t have to worry about the notices and all that, the
legality of adjourning the meeting for a week.
Mayor Peterson stated that she guesses the word is recess, recessing the meeting and
Supt. agreed they meant recessing.
Commissioner Schlather stated that his concern with if we recess for a week, he does
not know what the legal effect of that is.
Mayor Peterson stated that they do that at the IURA and we’ve done it at Common
Council rarely, she believes from Roberts Rules you’re allowed to recess if you name a
specific time that you’re coming back together.
Motion to Recess the Meeting:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the Board recess this meeting to June 21, 2006 at 4:45 p.m. in
Common Council Chambers.
Carried Unanimously
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor