HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2006-07-05BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. July 5, 2006
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Romanoff, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
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
Motion to Remove from the Table the Red Bud Woods Plaque – Resolution
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the following Red Bud Woods Plaque Resolution be removed from
the table for discussion.
“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, with a
plaque based on the following wording submitted on June 21, 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 in consultation
with community members and committee members.”
“In Memoriam” Redbud Woods
The land before you was once home to the extended family
of Robert H. Treman, creator of parks and protector of green
spaces throughout Tompkins County. A woodland here was
inhabited for decades by diverse fauna and more than fifty-
plant species, including numerous redbud trees. Redbud
Woods was razed on July 20, 2005 by the Cornell
administration to build a parking lot. This plaque has been
erected by Ithaca community members in memory of this
cherished woodland.
“Remember these trees…
Remember all who tried to save them”
Carried Unanimously
Red Bud 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, with a
plaque based on the following wording submitted on June 21, 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 in consultation
with community members and committee members.”
Redbud Woods
The land before you was once home to the extended family
of Robert H. Treman, creator of parks and protector of green
spaces throughout Tompkins County. A woodland here was
inhabited for decades by diverse fauna and more than fifty-
plant species, including numerous redbud trees. Redbud
Woods was razed on July 20, 2005 by the Cornell
administration to build a parking lot. This plaque has been
erected by Ithaca community members in memory of this
cherished woodland.
Mayor Peterson stated that Commissioner Dotson was handing out the resolution that
was what she had moved at the meeting two weeks.
Commissioner Dotson stated that there were two small changes that she doesn’t think
are substantial but that she would hand it around for the Board. She further stated that
it is virtually what the Board was talking about last time.
Mayor Peterson stated that there were some quotation marks removed. She stated that
there was a notation at the bottom that mentions the non-substantive changes, is there
any objection from the Board for considering this version without the quotations and
changing the one word, any objections to that? No, okay. Alright, so this is on the floor
for discussion. She further stated, that well, perhaps, I or Jennifer, or Wade or Maria
could give a report on the sub-committee meeting, it’s in your packet and she does not
know if anyone else would like to do that. She just happened to take the notes; or tried
to reflect very briefly what occurred at that meeting, so that is in your agenda packet
and it explains who attended the meeting on June 29, 2006, and there was a memo
from John Gutenberger that made request for certain language to be included in the
proposed plaque. That was really the source of most of the discussion, is what Cornell
administration, through John Gutenberger, had suggested for the language. She stated
that the gist of that memo from John Gutenberger and he was not at the meeting but
Gary Stewart was there, was to either remove the words “of Cornell Administration” or
explain more broadly after the words “to build a parking lot” after thorough
environmental review and approval of the City’s Planning Board that the parking lot was
built for part of the university’s West Campus Residential Initiative. She does not know if
anyone has that e-mail with them, that they could read out that detailed language. That
was the gist of the discussion and to see if there was any common ground that could be
achieved in the sub-committee meeting and you’ll see that there was some language in
bold on your piece that is in your packet that is not an agreed upon language, it was
kind of the focus of that discussion in that subcommittee. Maria, Wade, Jennifer did you
want to add to that?
Commissioner Dotson stated that what the Mayor said was very accurate, it seemed
that the focus of the discussion was expressing what happened, who did it, in as few
words as possible while still retaining the sense of the steps that took place in building
the parking lot. She heard some concern that city approved didn’t really tell the whole
story, so she thinks that was the source of lack of openness to just including those
words. She really thinks what was a really interesting solution to this is to have larger
plaque with really a civics lesson on it, how the entire process went forward, the legal
attributes, the what is site plan review, how did this entire thing happen, and that would
really tell the full story, but to tell it in five words is really difficult.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he was trying to figure out exactly where we are.
There was a group that met and is this language that we have before us this was
language that everybody agreed on or we are presently at logger’s head, where is the
controversy at this point as far as this working group is concerned? This group that met
last week, what, where is there controversy? Where is there departure from the
language that is now before us?
Commissioner Wykstra asked if it was fair to say that it is only over the phrase “for the
University’s West Campus Residential Initiative”? As far as any controversy?
Mayor Peterson stated that she would say, Ray, that at that meeting she said it was not
necessarily agreed upon, but she thinks that folks at the meeting were pretty willing to
consider the language “for the University’s West Campus Residential Initiative” to put
the parking lot construction in a context, but the reason she note at the top is because
the Red Bud Woods working group is a larger group than those who were represented
around the table and she wrote it that way understanding that they would be highly likely
going back to speak with the rest of their organization. That’s why it is written that way.
Her understanding is that she believes that it was stated unanimously that the group did
not like the language “for the University’s West Campus Residential Initiative” but could
perhaps consider language such as to build a dormitory, parking lot, or perhaps a West
Campus parking lot, but were reluctant to say the “the West Campus Residential
Initiative” as the meaning of that overtime may not be terribly clear what that was, but
dormitory, parking or West Campus as a general area could possibly be something that
works. She would also take a wild guess that the university does not prefer this
language either, they wanted either “Cornell Administration removed” or a further
explanation which she thinks many of us at the table felt would have to be a much
broader explanation to really get at the chronological pieces of the year, well the one to
five years of the effort around that parking lot. So, the group persay did not come to
agreement of saying this is the language that we could all live with.
Commissioner Schlather responded okay, so the effort at including Cornell in this
process really hasn’t succeeded. He means it was useful and he appreciates what has
been done. From his standpoint, he thinks that it was important that the property owner
be given an opportunity to weigh in on this. The property owner has, but it is pretty clear
that there has not been concensus reached. Therefore, we need to just decide as a
group, whether and what it would say. His view of this is essentially and fundamentally
two-fold; one is he thinks that if we are going to do this, we should do it in a way that is
defensible both legally and morally; and secondly, and in that regard that we be very
wary of the slippery slope which he thinks is wide open at this point, so that is his first
concern, and the second concern is to try to strip it as much as possible of its what he
calls the “editorializing” the passion, the stuff that the reader can insert, but it is not
necessary for the government to lead the reader in that direction so blatantly. So, to that
end, and he is just going to make these motions, if they pass they pass, if they don’t
they don’t, but he is just laying it out because this is the way that he sees it.
He would move to strike the phrase at the top
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner
RESOLVED, That the Resolution be amended to read as follows:
“In Memoriam” he would just call it “Red Bud Woods”, he would also he thinks that it is
silly to put in the language “for the University’s West Campus Residential Initiative” or
“dormitory” or anything of the sort, it is a parking lot and if we’re gong to say it was
razed for a parking lot, it was razed for a parking lot. So, he say leave that the way it is
and the only other thing that he would take out is that little platitude at the bottom
“remember the trees, remember all who tried to save them”. I would just simply say Red
Bud Woods – The land before you was once home to the extended family of Robert H.
Treman, creator of parks and protector of green spaces throughout Tompkins County.
The woodland that grew up here was inhabited for decades by diverse fauna and more
than fifty plant species, including numerous redbud trees. Redbud Woods was razed on
July 20, 2005 by the Cornell Administration to build a parking lot. This plaque has been
erected by the Ithaca community members in memory of this cherished woodland. That
is what he would support and he move those modifications.
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
RESOLVED, That the Resolution be amended to read as follows:
“Red Bud Woods – The land before you was once home to the extended family of
Robert H. Treman, creator of parks and protector of green spaces throughout Tompkins
County. The woodland that grew up here was inhabited for decades by diverse fauna
and more than fifty plant species, including numerous redbud trees. Redbud Woods
was razed on July 20, 2005 by the Cornell Administration to build a parking lot. This
plaque has been erected by the Ithaca community members in memory of this
cherished woodland.”
Mayor Peterson stated the amendment removing the words “In Memoriam” and ending
the plaque after the word woodland. Taking out the items in italics at the bottom.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he has wondered about the italicized words in the
version that he has, the two lines at the bottom and have shared much of Ray’s feeling
and view about those, but he thought about those further on and talked to a few more
people and thought about history, and emotion, and they reflect the history, there was
that sort of passion that was going on that sort of emotion and personally, he thinks
(can’t make out the word) from such directed language, he feels that way himself and
he has come to respect that those words are important to a lot of people and he does
think that those words say something about the history, so he is perfectly happy to leave
them in. He does agree with Ray that “In Memoriam” should be struck.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she thinks that this plaque will make a whole lot
more sense in the future given the abyss we’re facing environmentally. She thinks this
will become more and more meaningful with time and she thinks that some of the
passion in it is quite appropriate, she thinks that possibly the last two lines are
redundant in the sense that the plaque does say that, it describes it quite beautifully;
unless this is a famous quote that she’s missing, did a poet say this, she feels that those
lines don’t add anything more to what the little story already tells, but she thinks that
some of the passion in it, the memory portion in the title, she thinks will make a whole
lot of sense to people, if it doesn’t know, it certainly will.
Alderperson Coles stated that she wanted to begin what she wants to say by stating
that she thinks there is a great deal more agreement here today than there has been in
the past and that makes her very, very happy. It makes her happy because she really
does believe that a plaque commemorating the woods that are no longer there is very
important to this community. So, she is really glad to hear the way the conversation is
going and she has to say that she is particularly pleased because to insist upon
property rights as if they was sancrosaked does not make sense and the only way that
she can explain what she means is with an example which, of course, will be extreme
and the only reason for the extremely turbulent example is to make a point as directly as
she possibly can. If a private property owner were to declare that he or she wants to
build a nuclear power plant in a specific piece of private property, certainly we would all
see that the community would have a great deal to say and indeed would have a
responsibility to say something about this plant. She would also argue but perhaps it is
no longer necessary that to remove conflict from our history is not prudent, is not wise, it
is not responsible, she remembered going door to door in 1967 to talk to people about
the Vietnam War and one of the things that she heard over and over again was how
dare you demonstrate and do all the things that you’re doing, she wasn’t doing anything
illegal, everything she was doing was totally legal, but how dare you be so outspoken
when this has never happened in the history of our country and she understand that not
everybody here has that notion of history, but in fact, she wants to remind everyone that
Susan B. Anthony was 84 years old when she wrote it illegally as her statement for
Women’s Rights and it was illegal at the time and for us to pretend and Susan B.
Anthony died not being able to vote legally, so for us to pretend that all is harmony does
not do our society a great deal of good. So, she is really glad that the conversation here
today has moved to the way it has and please excuse her for going this long, but it
really means a great deal to me.
Mayor Peterson stated Ray, did you wish to separate your amendments or keep them
whole? Those ones suggested, she was trying to gather, there seems to be different
pieces of conversation about the “In Memoriam” part and the poem part and she was
just trying to
Commissioner Schlather stated that before he were to accept any form of further
modification he would be curious to hear from the rest of the Board.
Mayor Peterson asked if there were any other comments.
Commissioner Chapman stated that we’ve discussed this at numerous meetings now
and he thinks we could keep discussing it probably if were all each given a chance we
would each come up with some different wording, but he thinks we are approaching a
consensus here. He would go along with Ray’s motion on both aspects.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she agrees with Ron, but comes to a different
conclusion. She does not feel the need to make those changes especially since the
concern we heard outside of this Board doesn’t center on those two changes removing
“In Memoriam” and removing the poem. So, she is not in favor in removing them, but it
is more important to her that we get a plaque up.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he does want to hear from the rest of the Board
members.
Mayor Peterson stated that she thinks everyone has spoken that has wanted to.
Commissioner Schlather stated let me know you why I am concerned about this, and
this is something that is kind of lurking in the background all the time and he thinks it
needs to be clarified and he is glad our City Attorney is here because he would ask a
question of him and for his opinion. He is sorry, that he did not alert you to this ahead of
time Dan. His concern goes to the fundamental issue of the government commenting
adversely on the lawful use of private property by a property owner. And, to the extent
that the words “In Memoriam” and you know what he would call the “fighting” words
“Remember the Trees” “Remember all those who tried to save them” to the extent that
those carry within it some sort of editorializing, he keeps referring to it cryptically as
editorializing, to the extent that they carry within it, the message of disapproval on the
part of the government, then to that extent, he worry that we may be inviting some sort
of you know a private property owner may say hold it, the full weight of government is
being brought to bear against us (the private property owner) for the lawful use of our
property and the government does not have the right to do that, not in some official sort
of way, are we allowed to debate it, sure, are we allowed to talk about it in an informal
sort of way, sure, but are we allowed to censor it in some official sort of way. He is not
so sure about that from a legal standpoint and so his concern is to make this language
as defensible as possible against that type of an attack. So, his thought is, and there is
a second reason for “In Memoriam” he thinks that this is far too grave a term for this
activity, but in any event, he is trying to remove from the language what he would call
the “fighting” words. In the hope of not inviting that type of legal challenge. Am I on the
right page or not?
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he does not think he can give a full answer to that.
But, without studying the plaques that are all over the states in the country, some of
which he suspects do have editorial comments in them. He recalls plaques that seem to
state approval at the conquest of Native Americans in this region.
Commissioner Schlather responded but we’ve ratified that.
City Attorney Hoffman responded, well maybe. He stated that he does not see anything
in the wording here that implies that the property owner did anything illegal, and Ray he
would look to you as the person with much more expertise on the right of free speech
and he does not know to what extent implies to a municipality but he is not seeing
anything that is false in these words.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that the question he has about that thinking about the
same issue, he has looked and found the words of this stated “erected by Ithaca
community members” so are these words the stance, the position, of the government of
the City of Ithaca or is the government of the City of Ithaca allowing free speech by a
group of people living in the City of Ithaca? That’s what he is wondering about.
It seemed alright to him.
Mayor Peterson stated that she just wanted to insert herself here for a moment, as she
has been reading these sentences over and over and over again, one thing occurred to
her, is in a more noticeable way to pull out the phrase “This plaque has been erected by
Ithaca community members in memory of this cherished woodland” to highlight that this
is a community plaque project and either pull it out from the rest of the paragraph or put
it at the very end of italics or even at the beginning to show this is different, it is not our
typical historic plaque, there is something different here it’s been paid for and written by
the Red Bud Woods folks, the hundreds of people who were involved with this, because
she has been thinking about those same points, and she was thinking that could clearly
indicate that this is a little bit different from what we think of our typical historic plaque
that it is a marker, that it is history, but it also marking an event that is and was
important to a group of people, a large group of people in the community. So, that was
one thought she had. Similarly kind of thinking the same way to highlight that portion of
this plaque. She just wanted to jump in there because she had been thinking about that
for a while.
Commissioner Dotson stated that when we get done with this amendment, if that
addresses anybody’s concern, she thinks that she would be supportive of that. She was
having the same thought as Wade. Essentially, we’re giving permission for a forum for
community members to speak and it is permanent, it’s not like a presentation in a park.
We’re not paying for this, we’re allowing it to be placed in a public right-of-way and she
thinks that is an important distinction.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she thinks your suggestion is an excellent one to
set the last sentence in italics or some other variation or have a space and then
following it that way, she thinks that answers alot of issues that you have. But, she just
has a tiny issue and this is just a comment. You know as a one time member of Cornell
University, she has a problem with your definition of it in the sense that she thinks of it
as a community but say of administration, faculty, alumni, and students and employees
as working as a family of ideas and she felt that in this case that was sorely lacking and
as result this got the way it did and she thinks that it might be a lesson for the university
too in the future to work more congenially with people when they show this kind of
commitment and passion. It’s one of the strongest demonstrations that she has ever
seen in Ithaca, and it lasted for quite a while. So, she thinks with the Mayor’s idea of
distinctly setting that in italics or apart, community members, she thinks that creates a
different tone and takes the sort of government threat out of this.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he likes your idea of separate and apart from his
amendments. In other words, he thinks that that he would want what you are suggesting
to be distinct in the manner that Vicky has just described and you have described and
he thinks that is right. But, he thinks the other issue, this is not the same as the City
simply allowing someone to erect a plaque, there is the impremeter of the City A: in our
given this approval, frankly, and B: not only just giving the approval, but we are
extremely involved in drafting this. In other words, this is not like a piece of art where we
say you know you go before a public arts commission and the public arts commission
says this is suitable public art, boom and then whatever the artist does is pretty much
protected. This is the City drafting this and so he thinks that particular argument is not a
particularly strong one against the concern about governmental oppression or whatever
you want to call it. But, you know, these are concerns that he has and his theory is that
if we can accomplish what we want to accomplish, without begging those sorts of
problems, then why don’t we accomplish it that way. Sometimes the poetry of the
moment does not come from the words and the page, but it comes from the imagination
of the reader and he thinks the poetry or the message or whatever you want to call it,
the art, the passion all of that is going to come from the person who is going to read
this, looks at the stark facts, and then will react to that in a way that is moving or not
depending upon how compelled that person is, how pursuadable that person is. So,
anyway he has said enough and that’s just where his at, that’s all.
Mayor Peterson stated so on the floor is striking “In Memoriam” and items at the end in
italics. Are you ready to vote on that recommendation, she is one of those halfway
people so all those in favor of striking “In Memoriam” and the “Remember the Trees”
“Remember all those who tried to save them” all those in favor of striking those
please raise your hand
Carried 4-3
So the plaque has been amended to have a title “Red Bud Woods” and with the
“Remember the Trees”, “Remember all those who tried to save them” removed.
Mayor Peterson stated so what is left in front of you is the title “Red Bud Woods” and
the several sentence paragraph that are in front of you. Further discussion
Commissioner Schlather stated that at our last discussion of this, John Schroeder had
been speaking to the group as a representative and since he has his hand raised or he
did a second ago, he is curious what he would like to add to the discussion, it’s up to
you.
Mayor Peterson asked John if he was still the designee?
John Schroeder stated that he thinks, first of all he is surprised because even Cornell
was not objecting to the poetry or the two lines at the end, so he finds it very surprising
that in an attempt to reach a consensus on this one essential thing has been eliminated,
something that no one objected to, or at least Cornell did not object to. So, his feeling is
that with the two changes, there will be no plaque because he does not think people are
going to contribute for that, he does not think that it’s going to fly. He was very hopeful,
it sounded like there was going to be a consensus that preserves the simple historical
statement, the narrative of what had happened, but the one thing that referred to as
Maria said the passion as part of the history, as part why people care, it’s part of why
people want to contribute to the plaque, it’s part of what people wanted remembered. It
was those two little lines where the one little evocation of the immense community
passion and energy and struggle and time that went into that and to denude of that he
thinks is to strip it of some of its historical reality, some of its truth and he just thinks
there is no longer a plaque.
Mayor Peterson thanked him.
Mayor Peterson stated that it is highly unlikely to invite comment while there is a
resolution on the floor, so she was just recognizing John for that, because there was a
resolution on the floor with discussion with the Board of Public Works so thank you
John.
Commissioner Romanoff asked if it was too late for a compromise? She is surprised
that the two deletions occurred in one vote.
Mayor Peterson responded that was alright because that was what the motion was.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that is what the motion was, it is possible for members of
the body to make essentially an amendment to divide the motion.
Commissioner Romanoff responded that she would like to propose that if possible.
Mayor Peterson stated that it has already passed
City Attorney Hoffman stated that it has been voted on now.
Commissioner Romanoff asked if she could make her own amendment?
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he would say that if her amendment is something
other than complete reversal of what just happened, he thinks you can make that. You
can’t make a amendment to, he would say off the top of his head that that is acceptable
because you’re not reversing the previous.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she would like to propose that we leave the word
“In Memoriam” in and take out the last two lines as previously voted on.
Mayor Peterson asked if she wanted to restore the words “In Memoriam”?
Commissioner Romanoff responded yes.
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Romanoff: Seconded by Commissioner
RESOLVED, That the Resolution be amended to restore the words “In Memoriam”
Commissioner Schlather stated that this is not a second and asked if he may make a
point of order comment, if he may? Please.
Mayor Peterson responded if it’s an actual point of order comment.
Commissioner Schlather stated that his understanding that any of the four individuals
who supported this resolution is permitted to reintroduce the resolution or something
contrary to it. He would never want the other three colleagues to feel that were stuck in
supporting the resolution because they supported only half of it. So, he is concerned
about that and if anyone of the three were to say, well you know I would really prefer
one of these as opposed to both of these he would respect that. That being said, so that
is the point of order issue, and I will go no further.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that his answer to what Ray just described, he has some
very mixed feelings about the last two lines and as of now, I see how important they
really are to alot of people and he would like to see those reintroduced. He is not sure if
that
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he would make a motion to reconsider.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he would like to make a motion to reconsider the last
two lines.
Mayor Peterson stated that he is not considering the whole one, he just want to make a
motion
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he thinks that officially you need to make a motion to
reconsider what was voted on, then it can be split as Vicky had wanted to do. Once it is
on the floor for reconsideration.
Mayor Peterson asked Wade if he was making a motion to reconsider.
Motion to Reconsider the Motion
By Commissioner Wykstra: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
RESOLVED, That the Board reconsider the motion on the vote.
Commissioner Schlather asked if it had to be one of the four?
City Attorney Hoffman responded not the seconder
Commissioner Dotson asked if it was true that what was on the floor is the striking of
both of “In Memoriam” and the two lines at the bottom?
Mayor Peterson responded yes, it’s being reconsidered.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she would like to make a motion to split
Commissioner Schlather stated no, don’t we first have to vote to reconsider?
Mayor Peterson stated this is a discussion on the reconsideration
Commissioner Schlather stated that now, he would like to be heard on that. He, as he
said, he certainly would not wish any of his colleagues to feel that they were stuck
voting for both when they only wanted to vote for one. That being said, he will frankly
support the motion to reconsider because he has respect for Wade and he knows how
difficult this has been for him and for all of us and so he wants to make sure the vote on
this is on the merits and not on some technicality, so he will support the motion to
reconsider, but he can’t help himself, he, frankly troubled when we are confronted by
those who would promote this plaque that they somehow take the position that you
know you give us all the marbles or we’re not going to do it. That and he knows that he
is going out on a limb here, but he thinks that is ridiculous, he thinks that kind of a
position I would suggest is a position out of frustration as opposed to out of reason
because even with those two items struck, this plaque has plenty of impact.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was more discussion on the reconsideration?
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she thinks the group that wants this plaque has
already, their verbiage was far ferior earlier on, they have made many, many
concessions, so she does not think that they have taken steps in that direction.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was any other discussion on reconsideration?
A Vote on the Reconsideration resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Mayor Peterson stated so on the floor is again a proposal to strike “In Memoriam” and to
strike “Remember the Trees” and “Remember all those who tried to save them”
Commissioner Jenkins asked if that would be two separate votes?
Mayor Peterson responded well, nobody has moved that
City Attorney Hoffman stated that so far, it’s undivided.
Mayor Peterson stated that nobody has suggested anything.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that somebody would need to move to divide the two
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Romanoff: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the two points of discussion, the title and the last two sentences be
divided for consideration as two separate items.
Commissioner Jenkins stated that she just has a problem with “In Memoriam” could we
say “In Remembrance”? instead. It just seems dark, you know. I would prefer like “In
Remembrance”
Mayor Peterson stated okay, let’s first see if there is agreement to separate these and
then we can possibly have that discussion. It sounds like you’re probably supporting
these so you can have that discussion. Anyone else, any comment on supporting the
separation?
A Vote on the Amending Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Mayor Peterson let’s just start at the top and start with the proposal to remove the words
“In Memoriam”.
Commissioner Jenkins stated that she just feels like it should be in remembrance of
Red Bud Woods instead of “In Memoriam” it just seems like, it’s not a person, usually
you use that for a person, for her you use it for a person, in memoriam, instead of the
woods, that way you have a little bit of what’s on the bottom, up at the top. That’s just
how I fee, you know.
Mayor Peterson stated that if you like CJ you can make an amendment and say that
you would like to amend the language “In Memoriam” to say “In Remembrance of”
instead.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he had a point of order. He does not think that,
don’t we have to vote on the amendment first, first because that totally defeats the
purpose of
City Attorney Hoffman stated that normally you can amend and amendment, you can try
to amend an amendment
Commissioner Schlather responded if it doesn’t defeat the whole purpose
City Attorney Hoffman stated also if it doesn’t defeat the whole purpose.
Commission Schlather stated that defeats the whole purpose, whether it’s “In
Remembrance” or “In Memoriam”. His contention is Red Bud Woods is what it ought to
say. There is already reference to memory in the last sentence which he hopes will be
separated down and so it shows that there is some element of cherishing this thought
which he thinks captures that essence without having to put it in the title.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that so he is understanding the intent of Ray’s
amendment. He agree that CJ’s amendment is going in a completely different direction,
so you could wait until after the vote on this and then you could make a separate motion
to amend.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he feels the plaque would read much better and look
better with just Red Bud Woods at the top. He do think we should strike “In Memoriam”
or anything else, because the plaque itself a memoriam.
Mayor Peterson asked if there were any other comments on striking the words “In
Memoriam”
A Vote on striking the words “In Memoriam” from the title of the resolution resulted as
follows:
Carried (6-1)
(Tape and notes do not specify the Board member who opposed the resolution)
Mayor Peterson confirmed that the words “In Memoriam” have been struck from the
resolution. She further stated that next is the striking of “Remember the Trees”
“Remember all those who tried to save them”.
A Vote to strike out “Remember the Trees” “Remember all those who tried to save
them”.from the resolution resulted as follows:
Failed (3-4)
(Tape and notes do not specify how Board members voted)
Mayor Peterson stated that right now it reads:
“Redbud Woods
The land before you was once home to the extended family
of Robert H. Treman, creator of parks and protector of green
spaces throughout Tompkins County. A woodland here was
inhabited for decades by diverse fauna and more than fifty-
plant species, including numerous redbud trees. Redbud
Woods was razed on July 20, 2005 by the Cornell
administration to build a parking lot. This plaque has been
erected by Ithaca community members in memory of this
cherished woodland.
“Remember the Trees”
“Remember all those who tried to save them”
Commissioner Dotson stated that she moves to amend by separating the last sentence
from the paragraph.
Amending Resolution
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Chapman
RESOLVED, That the last sentence be separated out from the paragraph and placed
just above the italicized words.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she moves to amend by separating the last sentence
from the paragraph.
Mayor Peterson asked where would she put in, keep it in above the italicized words, but
pull it down a bit and separate it out?
Commissioner Dotson responded yes.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was discussion on separating in some fashion making
that sentence stand out to indicate the community members had erected this plaque.
A Vote on the Amending Resolution Resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Mayor Peterson stated that she has to keep running through this so it reads:
“Redbud Woods
The land before you was once home to the extended family
of Robert H. Treman, creator of parks and protector of green
spaces throughout Tompkins County. A woodland here was
inhabited for decades by diverse fauna and more than fifty-
plant species, including numerous redbud trees. Redbud
Woods was razed on July 20, 2005 by the Cornell
administration to build a parking lot.
This plaque has been erected by Ithaca community
members in memory of this cherished woodland.
“Remember the Trees”
“Remember all those who tried to save them”
Mayor Peterson stated that is what is currently on the table as the amended resolution.
She asked if there were any other changes or statements? Questions? Is everyone
ready to vote on what’s in front of you? She stated that it doesn’t sound like anybody
else is interested, she was interested in the contextual portion of the West Campus
location, she herself has appreciated the changes. She knows the one that was very
important to many of us were the words of President Hunter Rawlings removed and for
her it was “by order of” which was a concept that she had some issues with. She does
like the separation of the plaque sentence because it does show that it can be a
uniquely different kind of approach to what this plaque is. Are there any other
amendments, changes.
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion as amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Wykstra, Dotson Romanoff, Chapman, Peterson
Nays (2) Schlather, Jenkins
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Award of Chemical Bid – Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
WHEREAS, bids were received on May 30, 2006, for the annual chemical requirements
for Water and Wastewater Plants, and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the bids and is forwarding a recommendation to the
Board, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards the bid for the annual
chemical requirements as follows:
Low Unit Estimated
Chemical Bidder Price Annual Cost
Item 1 Primary Coagulant No Bid - 0 - - 0 -
Item 2 Filter Aid Zinkan Enterprises $3.85/lb. $ 7,700.00
Item 3 Coagulant Aid SNF Polydyne $6.18/lb. $ 18,525.00
Item 4 Potassium Permanganate Calciquest, Inc. $1.76/lb. $ 9,680.00
Item 5 Ferrous Chloride Kemiron Co. $0.35/lb. $ 61,425.00
Item 6 Gas Sulfur Dioxide Jones Chemicals $0.40/lb. $ 10,400.00
* $100 cylinder deposit
Item 7 Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite Surpass $0.75/gal $102,051.25
Alternate:
Item A Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite - Bison Laboratories $0.88/gal $ 7,480.00
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Words authorizes the Assistant Superintendent
for Water and Sewer to enter into agreements with the low bidders for their respective
bids.
Carried Unanimously
Wastewater Digester Cleaning
By Commissioner Romanoff: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, the City received bids on June 1, 2006, to clean the primary digester, and
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the contract be awarded to Blue Heron Construction for their low total
base bid of $98,175 and that the Assistant Superintendent for Water and Sewer is
authorized to enter into the contract.
Carried Unanimously
Aurora Street Traffic – One Way or Two Way – Discussion:
Supt. Gray explained that Jane Marcham, 414 East Buffalo Street, appeared before the
Board on June 14, 2006, to express her concerns about the conversion of North Aurora
Street in the 200 and 300 Blocks from one-way northbound to two-way traffic. He
stated that in response, Traffic Engineer Logue has provided a memo dated June 20,
2006, with attachments from various reports for the Board’s information. He further
stated that it was his understanding that the studies were done under the premise that
the City wanted to convert both Cayuga and South Aurora. He stated that the
Engineering Department was not in favor or either conversion. He explained that the
Department of Public Works was about to convert the 300 Block of North Aurora Street
because they understood that to be the direction they had been given. He further stated
that it was part of work being done by the Planning Department, they did a traffic study,
and they had in fact entered into some legal agreements to Common Council which
included at least half of this work, the conversion of Cayuga Street is literally in a legal
document. The other one was just part of the study and it was proposed because you
were losing some southbound capacity you would try to restore it by changing the
northbound to two-way as you have on Cayuga Street. The system is functioning as it is
now, he thinks there will be problems eventually, but when they occur they will have to
be dealt with. In Jane Marcham’s concern she didn’t see that we were going to get a lot
for it and actually in light of the fact that it just dealt with a couple of blocks it didn’t, the
one thing that he remembers from all the discussions several years ago was there were
people who wanted to be able to go southbound on Aurora Street and make it all the
way to South Hill and so you would have to convert several blocks, not only up to
Seneca Street, but you would have to the next block and you lose tremendous capacity.
You would actually have to take parking out to make room for the turning movements
and the rest. He explained that one of the reasons that one-way streets work so well is
that people making left hand turns or right hand turns don’t have to block or impede
traffic continuing through. He stated that two one-way streets have a lot more capacity
than two two-way streets, you have the same number of lanes moving in the same
direction, but in effect you get dedicated turn lanes and other things with the one way
streets that you don’t get from the other. So, by converting one and not converting the
other, we did lose capacity and he thinks most of you have probably seen the impact of
that when you move through the city at certain times of the day. He stated that it is not
clear to him that converting the other one is necessarily going to resolve it and in fact it
may introduce a number of unhappy people further north because you will be asking
people to transfer over a couple of streets.
Commissioner Chapman stated that if both Cayuga and Aurora Streets were both made
two-way, they would both become less traffic efficient, was the basic idea here to try to
keep traffic from coming Dey Street, etc. driving through the north end and getting to
The Commons that way; instead of encouraging people to stay on Route 13 and use
one of the main feeders in?
Supt. Gray responded that as he understands it, it was really dealing more with types of
complaints that some of the politicians had received going door-to-door such as “I used
to be able to get to South Hill and now I have to go all the way around the Commons”
being an outsider and only twenty years in the community, all the way around the
Commons doesn’t seem like a very far detour, but there are people in town that didn’t
have to do that. In addition, there was a hotel being proposed that wanted people to be
able to get to the parking garage if they were parking in front of the hotel someone could
say, just go around the block, that is three right hand turns and you’ll end up in front and
apparently they weren’t willing to say go down two blocks, turn at the church and come
back and so the deal made with the hotel and incorporated right into their legal
documents was that Cayuga Street would be converted. He never saw this until he was
told to do it.
Mayor Peterson questioned staff about “who” did they think told them to do it, right now
between – when I became Mayor she kept talking about it because she thought she
was following up, this is old now it’s been two and one-half years ago, following up on
agreements that were already in place from the previous administration, especially the
Cayuga Street one and working with Traffic Engineer Cole we finally got that finished
and her impression was always that there was this companion piece and she is a little
concerned about the memo from staff that references an environmental impact
statement. She does not know if there was a finding about this for traffic control from
new construction downtown or if it was just mentioned, but she is a little concerned
about what was in the environmental work in relation to this block. If decisions were
made for certain construction or site plan dependent upon something being changed in
the future and she can’t really glean that from these few pages of background
information.
Supt. Gray stated that he asked Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish
that question because he thought that concern had been expressed. He does not have
that answer.
Mayor Peterson asked Asst. Supt. Ferrel if there was anything from the previous
administration that you recall that was explaining why this had to be done or
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded that his memory is getting bad, and no, he just knows that
he was told and he is not sure where it came, whether it came from the Mayor or the
Supt. at the time, but had to go out and do the survey; Cayuga Street was fairly easy to
convert as far as the number of meters to change and signs to change; North Aurora
Street was more complicated.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he believes that as Supt. Gray indicated there is a
contract that binds the City with respect to Cayuga Street, but does not bind the City,
there is no contract with respect to Aurora Street. He believes that can be confirmed. He
believes that the, he is not sure where the two-way conversion for Aurora Street came
from, but when you look at this language and he agrees with you, Madam Mayor that
we ought to get better information, but it reads as if if we were to expand the two-way
conversion beyond what is specified then there would be an adverse impact, but that to
have it at this level would not be an adverse impact. This was not done in mitigation of
anything, because if anything this makes matter worse for the downtown, this particular
piece because it puts all of the confrontational traffic from both Aurora Street
southbound and Aurora Street northbound onto Buffalo Street and Buffalo Street is
already jammed up because of the Ithaca Town Court and all of the people pulling in
and out and doing their ten minute parking or over to the Post Office, but more
importantly, it is jammed up at Buffalo Street and Cayuga Street where people, this
would force all of the South Hill traffic to effectively go up Buffalo to Cayuga then make
a left turn at Cayuga to get onto Cayuga to head south on Cayuga whereas, now, they
frankly will do it at Court Street and he is mindful of what Larry is talking about, but the
fact is there is more room to make a left turn at Court and Cayuga then there is at
Buffalo and Cayuga. He is not a traffic planner, but his view of this is that we should
simply abandon the two-way conversion of Aurora Street. He does not see any legal
basis for doing it or requirement and he certainly will agree that you should check the
environmental review to see if this was considered a mitigating measure, but when he
read this, he did not see this as part of a mitigating measure for anything. He saw it as a
potential adverse affect.
Mayor Peterson asked if there were any Board of Public Works votes uncovered or
Common Council votes, did we ask the Clerk’s office to do any research on that?
Supt. Gray responded that he did not think he asked specifically in that form,
Mayor Peterson stated that not that we’re beholden and we can change, but she was
just curious, she feels that she needs to recuse herself because it is a great advantage
for her because she lives on Buffalo Street above Aurora Street.
Supt. Gray stated that he does not remember any votes and he would have to go look
at it. He would tell you that because the way the studies were done, they just were part
of a package and since one of them was in a contract, he thought the other was, but he
has not been able to uncover that. He will have to check with Deputy Director of
Planning and Development Cornish to see if it is somehow determined as part of some
legal findings, but he believes that Commissioner Schlather is right, that because if you
actually took it out, if you broke them out, they were studied as a pair and in the study
you could come further and further down Aurora Street and create more and more
problems because you’d have to start losing parking and other things to get the capacity
back to handle the cars and he does not remember that it ever got voted on separately,
but just because they had been studied as a pair and he thinks that he carried them
through, Alan had talked about it that way and we were just getting ready to do what
momentum and history had prepared us for.
Mayor Peterson stated that the Boards needs a little more information yet.
Supt. Gray stated that he will dig deeper and also check with the Clerk’s Office.
Commissioner Chapman stated that he believes that one of the first meetings that he
was a member, the Board did vote on this and Commissioners Jenkins and Dotson
would probably have as good a memory as he. He thought the Board did in fact vote in
favor of this and the reason that he has it in his memory is he voted against it and Alan
was asking him afterwards.
Mayor Peterson stated that should be pretty easy to uncover and do a search through
the Clerk’s office for Aurora Street conversion for some key words, we should probably
be able to pick that up pretty easily.
Commissioner Dotson stated that her memory was just Cayuga Street with the
implication that Aurora Street would come later. It is confusing to her that we’re looking
at just doing it. It seems like if we’re looking at helping the traffic over at Buffalo and
Cayuga Street, why aren’t we converting Aurora all the way down to Seneca Street. She
realizes that there are parking impacts, but that is what would really, that would send
the traffic onto a street that can handle it. She needs even more information to know
what to do because it is complicated.
Supt. Gray responded that he would invite Traffic Engineer Logue to the next meeting
because he started to tell him that if you went the next block to Seneca, well, the DOT
required a study that was not done and it wasn’t being authorized it was going to be
another $40,000, the SRS study hadn’t been completed and apparently there weren’t
enough benefits to make it worthwhile. Again, this was a decision made by another
body at another time.
Commissioner Schlather requested that when Traffic Engineer Logue comes to the
meeting if he could please bring, he is still trying to visualize the attached park, that he
refers to
Mayor Peterson asked where that was
Commissioner Schlather responded that it’s Roman numeral number 6, item number 3.
It is mentioned a couple of times, but he knows
The Board determined that park is the little triangle of land kitty corner to Simeons on
State Street.
Commissioner Schlather asked if we are in agreement because he knows staff is
moving through this section of Aurora Street; are we in agreement that even if this
Board did act that the conversion will not take place until we have this sorted out; or if
you find that it was acted on and you were authorized to do it, then frankly, he would like
to do a resolution stopping it until it gets sorted out.
Mayor Peterson stated that a lot of that depends on Asst. Supt. Ferrel’s schedule of
work, because he had asked a couple weeks ago, and said they had a couple of weeks
to play with and now those couple of weeks are gone as though working were
proceeding; what kind of time frame are we looking at here?
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded that Water and Sewer is doing services on that block right
now, they will be done towards the end of the end so they would be ready to start work
on it sometime next week.
Mayor Peterson asked if Water and Sewer work would be done in two days?
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that they should be done with the 300 block by this Friday.
Mayor Peterson stated that it doesn’t matter how you put in the pavement replacement
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that there are a lot of meter changes, a lot of sign changes and
it is easier to do it, we can do it with the street open, we’ll end up blocking some of it,
they would do it while it was one way anyway so they could block one lane while they
do the work for the parking lane while we do the work. It’s not that big a deal.
Mayor Peterson stated that she is curious to see if Common Council voted on anything
on this too, so it will be a squeaker if we vote on something or not; direction either re-
affirming or whatever a week from today. We’ll get right in there on the edge with either
a confirmation of converting it to two-way or saying no; a week from today is a voting
meeting. So, that’s okay for staff’s timeline?
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded that would be okay.
Mayor Peterson stated that requires a lot of information gathering on staff’s end.
Supt. Gray stated that we could do it, it’s one way so the impacts are impeding traffic to
convert it; less than it would than if it was already two way. He has to dig further to seek
information.
Commissioner Schlather asked if we need more clear direction or can we all agree that
nothing is going to happen, nothing irreversible will happen between now and next
Wednesday.
The Board agreed.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would like some sort of resolution either in
affirmation or revocation or whatever for next Wednesday. Thank you.
Supt. Gray confirmed – so either a resolution requesting the conversion – that would
just open the discussion and the Board can feed it, or whatever. Supt. Gray stated that
they would find something or a resolution that has already been passed and will give
you that and you can make a resolution to defeat it, modify it, confirm it if you want.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he is very interested in the staff recommendation.
In other words, that’s important and specifically key to the Buffalo/Cayuga street piece.
Because there are so many times when there are giant tractor trailor trucks that stop
there to unload at Oasis and then you have the Farmers’ Market one day a week, but
you know it’s just so tight there.
Mayor Peterson asked Supt. Gray to please try to reach Deputy Director of Planning
and Development Cornish because this could be one of those situations where
Engineering has a recommendation and Planning has another one, so we’ll try to fill that
out as much as we can and figure out what all the points were. Occasionally, that
happens we have different departments with different recommendations and she thinks
that people should hear both if that is the case.
Motorcycles in Parking Garages:
Mayor Peterson explained that there was e-mail correspondence attached to the
agenda packet for Board members and also another e-mail came and she forwarded it
to Asst. Supt. Ferrel and Supt. Gray also, there was some date of July 15th she thinks –
some motorcycle or scooter wrote to her and wanted to have a free parking day for all
motorcycles and scooters for that day in the City of Ithaca. It’s kind of a nationwide thing
that reminded her that this question had come up and certainly, David Gelinas who
represents the 4th Ward, Gayraud Townsend represents the 4th ward which includes
Collegetown and Mary Tomlan from the 3rd Ward which includes Collegetown were
interested in pursuing this question because the first complaint came from the Dryden
Road garage. Today, just by chance when she was walking home, for a late lunch on
Seneca Street on the south side just west of Aurora Street, there were 4 Harley’s
angled in and parking at one parking spot, so she thought that was interesting.
Motorcycles are popular and we perhaps don’t have a policy on motorcycle parking and
so when she she talked with Rick, Rick explained that basically Dryden Road garage
and she doesn’t know about the other garages, but the bikes can come around the gate
and get free parking and that was an issue and she thought that maybe if bikes only had
monthly passes, they could be allowed or something so she started bouncing some
ideas around and thinking about that and she thought the Board maybe the Board was
not aware of motorcycle parking and just wanted to bring that up and scooters are
becoming more and more popular because of the mileage per gallon that they get and
so Rick or Bill do you want to add anything to that?
Supt. Gray stated that they are an operational problem for a couple of reasons and the
equipment suppliers for parking garage entrances don’t rate their equipment for
motorcycles and it’s not unlike the problem that motorcycles or bicycles have with the
detection loops in the street, it’s hard to get the equipment sensitive enough to pick it
up. In addition to that, motorcycles can be much more elusive when it comes to paying
for service in the operating of the garage. The only solution that he could come up
mentally was one of two, the first one was already mentioned was that motorcycles
would be okay if they are monthly permitted because you’ve already gotten your money
and they can come and go anyway. The other is and it is not available to us at our
existing garages is that they have to actually lay out an entrance so that there would be
an area segregated where they wouldn’t have to go through the equipment, they
wouldn’t be exposed to the danger of the gate coming down on them and you could
exclude them from the operating portions of the garage where if they got past the gate
and didn’t pay for the service you were just out the service that you provided.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she thinks we should be prepared for an onslaught
of these types of machines and this is Ithaca after all and we’re an alternative
community and she personally welcomes them as a way of getting around and she
thinks we ought to give this some very serious thought that we can tuck them in. They
should not go in parking garages and take up whole spaces because they don’t need it.
She thinks that we should find some clever solutions where they can park and she
thinks we should do it soon.
Commissioner Schlather asked logistically, Bill, he agrees, frankly he thinks we ought to
allow them to park in the garage and he doesn’t understand how if they come in and
they press the button that gives them a ticket and the gate goes up.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded no, you’ve got to activate the loop, it has to be enough
metal mass to activate the loop that the vehicle is standing over top of.
Supt. Gray explained the reason for that is because if you were about to leave and
wanted to leave and got yourself a ticket that was five minutes old
Commissioner Schlather asked how about when you’re leaving? Does it, if you pay the
money will the gate go up regardless of your metal mass?
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that the attendant can operate the gate.
Commissioner Schlather asked what if there was no attendant, once people want to
leave late at night?
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that when the permits were mentioned he was wondering if
somebody had a proxy card on a motorcycle whether that would activate the gate, we’ll
have to find out.
Commissioner Schlather asked if it wasn’t the act of payment that activates the gate as
opposed to the metal mass?
Supt. Gray stated that the gate has a detection system on it so that it knows it can come
back down, he is not sure how they programmed it in terms of it going up, you may be
right, that it does not read the loop in order to put the gate up because somebody was
there paying for it and fine you’re allowed out, but in order for the date to come down
you don’t want it to come down until the car has exited the space or in this case the
motorcycle so if it detects nobody there it is apparently programmed to come down in a
certain period of time if you hesitate for a second, you start to leave and we had this on
Dryden Road, the gate actually came down between the motorcycle rider and the
windshield.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he guesses his point with this is that he thinks this
is something that we need to figure out how to accommodate the motorcycles and this
may very well be something that if it was referred to that sub-committee that is working
on parking and rates and all that kind of stuff.
Mayor Peterson stated that there is a parking policy committee, we haven’t met for a
while.
Commissioner Dotson stated that was exactly what she was suggesting that we meet.
Mayor Peterson stated that there is an operations committee and a parking committee
and she doesn’t know if either one of them has met recently, but that is a good point.
Commissioner Chapman stated to add to this, he thinks that we need to consider not
only scooters and motorcycles, but ultra small cars are about to start being sold which
take up basically one third of a normal car’s parking space and if, he thinks that we just
need to keep that in mind as we’re designing new facilities and leave the option open to
have spaces and he thinks that we have some now for compact cars, but if there were
three spaces to replace one for sub-compacts these ultra mini cars will need them and it
will be a good idea.
Commissioner Dotson stated along the lines of what Commissioner Chapman was
saying, it may be that if we run into equipment problems we might want to designate a
few spots on the street for 4 motorcycles like you saw today.
Mayor Peterson stated that in general it sounds like the Board is interested in finding
someway to accommodate motorcycles/scooters in the garages. As long as we’re on
this topic of garages for a moment, she just wants to take a moment and she is not sure
who makes the policy, because it is the Cayuga Street garage and she thinks the Board
of Public Works should make policy, but she is not sure. She has had a number of
complaints on the end parking spaces at Cayuga garage if there is a big vehicle on the
end space and it is scary for people trying to get around because, she has never parked
there or driven there, but you have to get around it and people are feeling that maybe
those end spaces should be compact or subcompact cars only and frequently you see
that in garages, there are designated areas for sizes of cars so. She is just passing that
nto to Rick or Bill if anyone could go take a look at that and see if there is a solution for
that.
Supt. Gray stated that without creating an administrative thing, he would start by just
dealing with the current operators of the garage. The problem is a real one and so if
they got labeled compact only he is not sure you would get 100% compliance, but if you
got reasonable compliance it would help and he is sure that the operator of the garage
understands the safety issue.
Aurora Street Trunk Sewer:
Mayor Peterson asked Asst. Supt. Whitney if he wanted to update the Board about
where the crew is at.
Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that they are planning to cross East Seneca Street/NYS
Route 79 West nights this weekend. Sunday, the 9th, Monday, the 10th, and Tuesday,
the 11th. It was pretty much a condition that DOT for crossing the NYS route and getting
the permit to do that and after that they will, by the end of that week they should have all
the services buttoned up in the 200 block of Aurora Street and we’ll be able to move out
of there and move the operations to south of the bridge. He has pretty much generated
the schedule for the whole rest of the project right through the end of next year in the
draft of the notice that he will be sending out to South Hill residents.
Mayor Peterson stated that she does not have any specific directions and because no
matter what department or activity we correspond about or communicate about in the
City we always, it seems like we always get complaints about something, but she
doesn’t know if there were any changes to made because of some of the complaints
we’ve had or if there is ways to re-write the material that goes out. She is sure he knows
what material she is talking about, from Cascadilla or First Street, we’ve had calls and
she doesn’t think that it is anything wrong that we were doing, but people often their
literally interpretation of a notice, just those kinds of considerations when
communication notices are written just to maybe keep that in mind.
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that they are actually a little bit ahead of schedule,
everything has been on time and in fact a little ahead of schedule.
Commissioner Schlather asked if there are any of those connections being made where
the property owner is being asked to pay part of the cost of this or is that only with
water? Remember where we had the complaint? If there are, should that be included in
this notice, that’s all.
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that on March 10th we did send that out to the blocks we’ve
already worked in, during this next part of the project we can’t make any connections
until the work across the bridge is done and those property owners will be given a letter.
Commissioner Schlather just wants to make sure that if that is in the works somewhere
that ought to be highlighted that that is going to happen.
Supt. Gray stated that we get the complaints less frequently with the sewer work and
this is a truck sewer because property owners may not know they have a problem with
the pressurized water connection as long the water is coming, but if they have a
problem with their sewer connection, frequently they already know it.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he wants to make sure that the Martin Luther
King/State Street re-naming issue gets back on the agenda.
Mayor Peterson responded, yes and that she has some updates for the sub-committee
we are working with members of the Community Dispute Resolution Center and they
have met with her separately after the sub-committee met and she has to pull that back
together.
Commissioner Schlather stated finally, we had a Conley Park resolution that should be
placed back on the agenda because we never really actually acted on it.
Supt. Gray responded that he would place that on an agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor