HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2006-12-20BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. December 20, 2006
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (4) - Jenkins, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
City Controller - Thayer
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Traffic Engineer – Logue
Alderperson Korherr
EXCUSED:
Commissioner Chapman
Common Council Liaison – Coles
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the September 14, 2005, October 12, 2005, November 9, 2005, and
December 14, 2005 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes - Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the September 14, 2005, October 12, 2005,
November 9, 2005, and December 14, 2005 Board of Public Works meeting be
approved with noted corrections.
Carried Unanimously
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to or deletions from the agenda.
MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Peterson reported that she had been contacted by constituents over several
issues relating to the odd/even parking regulations. She stated that she would provide
copies of the various e-mails to the Superintendent’s office so they could be copied for
the Board.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Alderperson Korherr, representative of the 5th Ward and Chair of the Neighborhood and
Community Services Committee of Common Council, addressed the Board to report
that the committee heard from a group of GIAC staff members regarding a long
standing problem of parking for staff. They also spoke about the need for parking for
clients and parents for children and people in their programs, but the most urgent need
is that of staff parking. What the committee didn’t know when they heard from the group
was that the parking situation on Court Street has already been remedied, that BJM
apparently was given a group of slots at the end of the Court Street block and that has
been reversed so that the entire length is now public parking and the GIAC staff are
very happy about that. She realizes too that it has taken on a different twist because of
a grievance that had been filed on behalf of GIAC staff. What the committee did find out
was that the GIAC staff had come up with some short and long term options to resolve
this issue. A short term option was that someone representing the City, she is assuming
it would be the Mayor, could perhaps reach out to Calvary Baptist Church to see if we
could borrow parking or utilize some of their parking when it is not used by the church
during the day when staff needs it. There were other long term solutions provided such
as making arrangements with the Ithaca City School District. There were several
members of the GIAC community at the meeting talking on behalf of staff members and
parents and clients of the community center. She wanted to report that to this group
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 2
since the Board of Public Works really oversees all of the parking configurations in the
City. She further stated that GIAC staff also realizes that it is a difficult area, the majority
of the land belongs to Ithaca City School District across the street, it is in a residential
area, it’s very densely populated and there are a lot of challenges. She doesn’t know if
one has existed in the past or if it could exist in the future, but she would support
something like that certainly and if need be, she would be more than willing to reach out
to the folks at the church to see if some type of short-term arrangement could be made.
She thanked the Mayor for her comments regarding the odd/even parking because that
came up at the committee’s meeting and there was extensive discussion. She noted
that often committees of Common Council feel that a lot of these items should come to
them for discussion and consideration, but she truly feels this topic belongs at the Board
of Public Works and not at the Neighborhood and Community Services Committee.
She feels strongly that they should forward any comments to this group rather than take
it on themselves and run meetings parallel to the Board’s.
Mayor Peterson thanked Alderperson Korherr for her comments.
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC
Commissioner Dotson asked Alderperson Korherr about the comments the committee
received regarding odd/even parking and whether they could be forwarded to the Board
or if she could summarize them quickly for the Board right now.
Alderperson Korherr responded that, personally representing the 5th Ward, the greatest
number of comments that she has heard are complaints about odd/even parking where
you can only park on one side of the street and that they thought that special conditions
should apply in that situation. Some of the other comments are that the City is not
doing emergency snow removal, or it is not doing the things that warrant the odd/even
parking so can it be delayed, and another was can’t the City give notification in
advance. When all of these questions came up at the committee meeting that the Mayor
stated that this used to be a year round requirement and we need odd/even parking for
emergency purposes and can’t give out prior notice for situations like that.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she has heard some concerns too and would be
interested in looking into the issue. She further noted that it seems like the City might be
able to come up with a more efficient system where it only goes into effect for a shorter
period or only in emergencies. She is not sure but it seems like residents are moving
their cars a lot in comparison to the benefit that it gives staff.
Commissioner Schlather stated that with respect to the parking request from staff at
GIAC, how many employees are there or could Alderperson Korherr give the Board a
sense of the magnitude of the parking need.
Alderperson Korherr responded that she asked that question and on a daily basis during
their hours of operations GIAC staff would need 15 to 20 parking spaces for employees
only and it would not meet the public demand for parking.
Commissioner Schlather asked if the City tends to provide parking for all city employees
in one place or another?
Mayor Peterson responded that several City buildings have parking on site. She stated
that City Hall does not and staff park at a garage or elsewhere.
Supt. Gray stated that the parking lot near GIAC is not adequate to meet their daily
demands. He explained that the City actually traded a portion of that lot to the County
for other uses, so he is sure that employees from the County are parking in the
neighborhood as well.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he is trying to figure out in considering the City’s
inventory of parking throughout the city, whether the City tends to provide parking or is
there generally parking available at no cost for our city employees and it sounds like the
answer is yes.
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 3
Supt. Gray stated that he would tell the Board that parking for employees is provided in
many different ways and in the case of neighborhood school districts both the school
district and the city have depended upon on street parking to provide parking for their
employees. He further stated that the Board of Public Works has dealt with it for years,
especially around the Belle Sherman School and this has been a problem for staff at
GIAC in that they don’t have a parking lot. He stated that there is a lot of neighborhood
parking around it; it’s just not as convenient as having it in a parking lot right there at
GIAC. He thinks that this issue has now been raised enough that it is certainly worth
having the discussion with the Board of what it would like to do. He further stated that
this topic would be brought back to the Board after the City has dealt with the current
grievance concerning parking first.
Commissioner Schlather stated that to the extent that any subcommittee is appointed,
he would be glad to serve on such a committee. Mayor Peterson and Alderperson
Korherr thanked him for his offer.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC:
Public Hearing on Collegetown Special Benefit Assessment District
Resolution to Open Public Hearing:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
RESOLVED, That the public hearing to accept the Collegetown Special Benefit
Assessment District be declared open.
Carried Unanimously
No one appeared to address the Board on the Collegetown Special Benefit Assessment
District.
Resolution to Close Public Hearing:
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
RESOLVED, That the public hearing to accept the Collegetown Special Benefit
Assessment District be declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
Collegetown Special Benefit Assessment District - Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works accepts the Collegetown Special Benefit
Assessment District charges for 2007, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain be requested to make the billing at the
appropriate time.
Commissioner Schlather asked if there was a fixed interest rate for this particular bond?
City Controller Thayer responded that it is a fixed amount and the total assessment is
$38,000 each year, it only changes when there are square footage changes, parking
changes or development changes within the district itself.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Johnson Controls Energy Savings Project - Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca entered into an agreement with Johnson Controls to
develop a performance contract for the City’s consideration, based on capital
improvements which produce energy savings from lighting system modifications,
installation or upgrades to energy management systems, energy efficiency
improvements to building envelope (windows or roofs) or HVAC Systems, and savings
through education and staff awareness programs, and
WHEREAS, Johnson Controls has submitted a proposed program of improvement and
draft performance contract for review consisting of approximately $2.37 million in
improvements or modifications under a contract that guarantees a specified level of
energy savings over the period of the contract (15 years), now therefore be it
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 4
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works approves the project in concept with the
following provisions:
1) that the wind turbine demonstration project as currently proposed be deleted
for a project savings of approximately $40,000, with the understanding that
the community will have better opportunities in the near future.
2) that the LEED EB certification proposed for the Youth Bureau be deleted for a
project savings of approximately $48,000 with the understanding that this has
no impact on the projected energy savings or project guarantee.
3) that the City expects to exercise its right under the terms of the contract’s
performance guarantee to terminate the measurement and verification efforts
as soon as it feels the savings have been established (probably 2 to 5 years
out) with an estimated project cash flow reduction of between $170,000 to
$200,000.
4) that the project’s educational component be made available to City residents
through the City’s website or similar mechanisms if possible with little or no
project cost anticipated.
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board recommends that Common Council establish a Capital
Project in the amount of $2.3 million for the project, and be it further
RESOLVED, That contingent on funding by Common Council, the Mayor, City Attorney,
City Controller, and Superintendent are authorized to negotiate a final contract based on
this resolution, and that the Mayor is authorized to sign the contract.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the Johnson Controls information had been
summarized to him by Alderperson Coles and she indicated to him that she believed the
City Controller agreed with the analysis provided. He asked City Controller Thayer what
his position was on this before the Board considers it.
City Controller Thayer responded that he is pretty much in agreement with the overall
contract. There were a couple of items that he had issues with particularly the LEED
certification, and also he thinks there was a proposal for a wind turbine on this building.
Those two items were the items that he talked with Alderperson Coles about and said
that he was not sure that the cost/benefit made a whole lot of sense for the City. The
other thing was the service that Johnson Controls would provide over a period of time to
verify that the City was actually seeing the savings. He would suggest that the City enter
into an agreement for a shorter period of time.
Mayor Peterson stated that everything the City Controller is saying was incorporated by
the Superintendent of Public Works into the proposed resolution.
City Controller Thayer stated that overall he is comfortable with the project. He
explained that if the Board approves the resolution tonight, it would be placed on the
City Administration Committee agenda for January (because there will be no meeting in
December), if City Administration Committee approves it, then it would go on to
Common Council in February.
Supt. Gray explained that it is difficult for Johnson Controls to develop the schedules
that are needed for the contract until they know the actual scope of the project, which
this resolution will determine.
Commissioner Schlather congratulated the Mayor and the Department of Public Works
for having engaged this project. He was skeptical at the beginning because he felt that it
was one of these paper shuffling ways by which the private sector kind of horned its
way into the workings of government and siphoned off a good chunk of money as part
of that process, he is very cynical in that respect. But, it is clear to him that there is in
fact a good that can be done and that we are getting a good benefit out of this project,
and part of that benefit includes some capital projects that frankly are overdue and in
terms of energy savings are well justified. He further stated that it comes as no secret to
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 5
anyone here that he has been critical of the wind turbine, not because he is opposed to
wind energy, he is very much in favor of it, but he thinks that it is a waste of money for
this particular project and the learning curve as far as the general populace is
concerned is a very shallow curve since most people here already know abut wind
energy and have become familiar through other means and other projects that are being
pursued in the county. Secondly, he knows that the LEED certification is something that
is near and dear to some people and it looks good, but again, we don’t need to spend
almost $50,000 in order to get a gold star, as long as we do the work that has to be
done in order to indeed make the Youth Bureau a green building that, to him is good
enough, and he does not particularly need the gold star. So, he strongly supports that
particular deletion. Finally, the notion with respect to the monitoring, he is pleased that
the project will allow us to bow out of that monitoring at anytime and he would
encourage us to bow out as soon as possible. He thinks the two to five year window is
certainly reasonable under the circumstances. He is very much in favor of the resolution
as is proposed. The only question he did have is what does the phrase in number one
“with the understanding that the community will have better opportunities in the near
future” refer to?
Supt. Gray responded that while he was sitting in the office on Friday writing this with a
copy of the Ithaca Times, he was thinking that in the county between Cornell’s currently
aborted efforts, and some other private efforts that are currently underway, that the
community has opportunities to learn a lot about wind power and alternative energy.
Commissioner Schlather offered the following amending language for the resolution:
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
RESOLVED, That numbers one, two, and four under provisions be amended to read as
follows:
1) that the wind turbine demonstration project as currently proposed be
deleted for a project savings of approximately $40,000, it being clear that
the community has other opportunities to learn about wind turbine energy.
2) that the LEED EB certification proposed for the Youth Bureau be deleted,
with a project savings of approximately $48,000, with the understanding
that this has no impact on the projected energy savings or project
guarantee.
4) that the project’s educational component be made available to City
residents through the City’s website or similar mechanisms if possible with
little or no project cost anticipated.
Carried Unanimously
Commissioner Dotson stated that she understands the cost concerns about the wind
and the LEED certification, but thinks that they are both important but, in the interest of
getting this project moving forward, are not worth further discussion today.
Mayor Peterson stated that she feels similarly, and noted that Common Council will
have an opportunity to review this project as well. She likes the way this is laid out
because it is sort of like a menu of the pieces that the Board has highlighted to consider.
This makes it clear to Council the areas that the Board was concerned about. Basically,
for her she wants to get the project moving and get these big pieces done. She stated
that perhaps in the future there will be something about the wind that can be added onto
the project. She further noted just as a side note that when her Local Action Plan
Committee finally gets organized, there are other ways to look at building construction in
the City of Ithaca such as new municipal buildings or other new buildings where she
would like to consider some type of legislative direction for green building in the City of
Ithaca. It may not necessarily be LEED, because there is a lot of controversy about
LEED currently, but some organizations are now moving towards LEED like status but
may not qualify for the actual LEED certification levels. However, that is an area that
she is very interested in for City buildings.
Mayor Peterson asked Chris Kalwara, from Johnson Controls, how much energy would
have been generated by the wind turbine on the roof of City Hall.
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 6
Mr. Kalwara responded that Johnson Controls had estimated it to be a 1 kilowatt with an
estimated annual savings of several hundred dollars a year; so a relatively small out put
for that particular turbine.
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Amendment to the Vehicle and Traffic Schedules in Regard to Parking on Park
Street - Resolution
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is authorized by Section 346-4 of the City Code
to adopt and to amend a system of schedules in order to administrate the Vehicle and
Traffic Law, and
WHEREAS, a few residents of Park Street have requested the following change to the
parking regulations on the street, and
WHEREAS, Fire Marshall for the Ithaca Fire Department has agreed to the following
change, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is in agreement with these amendments to the
Schedules, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Schedule XII, Parking Prohibited at All Times, be amended to add
Park Street between Albany and Plain Streets on the south side of the street for the
entire length, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Schedule XV, Parking Prohibited Certain Hours, be amended to
remove Park Street, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Schedule XX, Continuous Parking, be amended to add the north side
of Park Street between Albany Street and Plain Street.
Traffic Engineer Logue stated that there will be plenty of parking on the street and that
most of those houses have driveways. This action would remove the parking prohibition
from 8 am to 6 pm and allow twenty-four hour parking. He further stated that he did not
believe that this would affect the ability of people to park on the street and uses of the
park and noted, again, that there is plenty of parking in the neighborhood. He stated that
with the twenty-four hour parking limit that cars have to be moved every twenty-four
hours in order to avoid the possibility of being towed.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding enforcement of the twenty-four hour parking
regulation, that cars should not be stored on city streets, and how this change would
impact odd/even parking on that street.
Supt. Gray stated that this is a topic he wanted to discuss with the Board. For him, this
street at the level it is currently used could probably have parking on either side as long
as it is held far enough back so that any fire trucks turning out of the traffic circle
wouldn’t hit anything. He likes the odd/even parking requirement because it makes it
hard to warehouse cars on city streets and he would suggest that this street have that
requirement instead. He noted that all the houses here have off-street parking. He
stated that he realizes that there are a few places in the City where parking is dense,
but for him Park Street is one of those streets like a lot of the ones at the north end of
the City where you could actually have parking on both sides of the street. He noted that
this street is a little narrower but it would slow people down and by letting it be odd/even
with cars parked randomly up and down the street just makes it not as inviting for
somebody to just go down that block to park. He does not think that it would get in the
way of the fire department and if he had his way this would be odd/even or even if
parking were restricted to one side, leave it just regular odd/even parking and explain to
people that every 36 to 48 hours they needed to move their cars.
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 7
Discussion followed on the floor regarding what the proposed change to twenty-four
hour parking, where other continuous parking areas are located throughout the city, how
often cars are towed because they have parked longer than twenty-four hours, how
many tickets are issued each year for odd/even violations or going over the twenty-four
hour parking limit, and enforcement.
Supt. Gray stated that this topic could come back to the Board for further discussion;
however, he would tell you that putting in 24 hour parking and removing odd/even
parking has land use impacts and other implications. He does not think this particular
neighborhood is going to be at risk because it is not in a high use area so he doesn’t
think that whatever is done here is going to be a problem, but in a lot of other places it
could have major impacts, which often times takes time to play out.
Mayor Peterson noted, as Supt. Gray mentioned, that this sounds like a topic of
discussion for another meeting and requested that it be placed on a future agenda.
Commissioner Schlather asked Traffic Engineer Logue how many residents on this
street actually requested this change and how big an issue this is to them right now.
Traffic Engineer Logue responded that he has spoken with four residents and the
request seems to be for convenience of the residents. He explained that the City did not
request a neighborhood petition for this which it sometimes does when it changes
parking on a street, mostly because this would just allow people to park from 8 am to 6
pm when they weren’t allowed to do that before.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Extension of Short-Term Lease for 530 W. Buffalo Street (Southside Community
Center / Recycle Ithaca’s Bicycles) - Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2006, the Board authorized the Superintendent to enter into a
lease agreement, with Southside Community Center (on behalf of the Recycle Ithaca’s
Bicycles program – also known as RIBs) for exclusive use of one-half of the space at
the former City pump station at 530 W. Buffalo Street, and such lease was executed on
June 8, 2006, with a term to expire in six months or on November 30, 2006, whichever
occurred sooner, and
WHEREAS, Southside and RIBs are interested in longer-term use of the (entire) site,
and, toward that end, are engaged in discussions with the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency (IURA) regarding a suitable, long-term arrangement, and
WHEREAS, the multiple steps that would need to occur before such an arrangement
could be implemented have not been completed, in part because of a change in
leadership at RIBs, and
WHEREAS, Southside and RIBs have requested that the Board extend the current,
short-term lease, to allow more time to explore a suitable, long-term arrangement
through the IURA, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to General Municipal Law, section 20 (2a), the City is permitted to
lease property under terms such as are contained in the existing lease for 530 W.
Buffalo Street, for a maximum period of three years, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board authorize the Superintendent to enter into an extension of
the existing lease with Southside Community Center, for exclusive use of a portion of
530 W. Buffalo Street, for an additional period ending on May 31, 2007.
Commissioner Dotson noted for the record that she is no longer employed by Southside
Community Center and is not aware of any conflict of interest, even though she did
previously, regarding this resolution.
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 8
City Attorney Hoffman stated that it is his understanding that work is proceeding to
move toward the arrangement with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, but that will take
at least several more months to get through all those steps. He is not aware of any
problems under the lease so far.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Appeal of Improper or Invalid Tag Violation - Resolution
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2006, Andrew Siwo, 210 Stewart Avenue, Apt. 1A, was
issued a trash violation, and
WHEREAS, the violation charged was for trash being over 20 pounds and using a half-
tag, and
WHEREAS, the fine charged for this violation totals $22.25 broken down as $20.00 for
improper use or invalid tag, and $2.25 for the cost of one (1) tag for 20 lbs. of trash, and
WHEREAS, the tenant disputed the fine stating he lives by himself, recycles most of his
trash, rarely fills up one (1) ten (10) gallon trash bag, and uses half tags each week,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That this appeal is denied due to the tenant’s use of a “half tag” (20-pound
trash tag) that he tore in half and placed on the trash bag before placing it at the curb.
Carried Unanimously
Request to Waive Garbage and Refuse Bill - Resolution
By Commissioner Wykstra: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received and reviewed a protest by Gus
Lambrou of a Garbage and Refuse bill, Invoice # 100003379, for untagged trash
collected September 1, 2006, at 405-407 Eddy Street, and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to bill a property owner from whose property trash
was removed and that the property owner had the opportunity to take trash back into
their property during the 24-hour grace period during which the trash remained at the
curb with a warning sticker, or to report it to the county under their illegal dumping
program if deemed appropriate, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board denies the request by Gus Lambrou to expunge the solid
waste bill in the amount of $38.75.
Commissioner Schlather recused himself from voting on this resolution due to conflict of
interest reasons.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried (4-0)
Request to Waive Garbage and Refuse Bill – 115 East State Street - Resolution
By Commissioner Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received and reviewed an appeal of a refuse
and garbage bill, Inv. # 00003565, for a recycling error on October 11, 2006, where
recycling was set out a day late thinking the Columbus Day holiday would result in the
pickup day being delayed one day later, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board agrees to expunge the bill in the amount of $20.00
because there is no 24-hour grace period provided for recycling and trash errors on the
Commons, with the understanding that this fee waiver will not be extended again
because the County’s solid waste and recycling schedule shows that pickup is not
delayed for the Columbus Day holiday.
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 9
Note: The County picks up recycling through a private contractor; the City cleans up
the Commons.
Carried Unanimously
DPW – Request to Amend Authorization for Capital Project #486 – South Aurora
Street Bridge over Six Mile Creek Project – Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
WHEREAS, a rehabilitation project for the South Aurora Street Bridge over Six Mile
Creek, P.I.N. 375380 (“the Project”), is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code as
administered by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), as amended, that calls
for the apportionment of the costs such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal
funds and approximately 20% non-federal funds, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by making a commitment
of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of Scoping, Design (Phases I-VI),
Construction, and Construction Inspection, and
WHEREAS, the City received bids for this project on December 11, 2006, and the low
bid of $1,528,292.66 exceeded the project’s estimated construction cost of
$1,286,048.7 now, therefore, the Board of Public Works duly convened, does hereby,
RESOLVE, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves the above-subject project;
and it is hereby further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that Common Council
hereby amends Capital Project 486 “South Aurora Street Bridge over Six Mile Creek” by
an additional amount of $253,293 for a total of $1,995,293, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that Common Council
hereby authorizes the City of Ithaca to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and
non-federal share of the cost of Scoping, Design (Phases I-VI), Construction, and
Construction Inspection for the Project or portions thereof, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that Common Council
hereby authorizes the sum of $1,995,293 be derived from the issuance of serial bonds
with the reimbursement from federal and state funds to cover the cost of participation in
the above phase of the Project; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that in the event the full
federal and non-federal share costs of the project exceeds the amount appropriated
above, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca shall convene as soon as possible to
appropriate said excess amount immediately upon the notification by the NYSDOT
thereof, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that Common Council
authorize the Mayor of the City of Ithaca of the County of Tompkins to sign all
necessary Agreements with NYSDOT to secure Federal Aid and Marchiselli Aid on
behalf of the City of Ithaca and the Superintendent of Public Works be authorized to
sign all necessary construction documents, contracts, certifications and reimbursement
requests, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends that this project be
undertaken with the understanding that the final cost of the City of Ithaca will be
approximately five percent (5.0%) of the final approved project cost, currently estimated
at $99,764.93 of the $1,995,293 authorized for this project, in monies and in-kind
services, as managed by the Superintendent of the Public Works and monitored by the
City of Ithaca Controller.
Commissioner Schlather asked if these are estimates or bid estimates, and how many
bids the City received for this project.
Supt. Gray responded that he does not have the bid tabulation and that they ranged
from this low of $1.5 to $2.2 million.
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 10
Commissioner Dotson questioned whether the Board or Common Council was awarding
the bid.
Supt. Gray responded that the City can’t actually award the bid until there is enough
money in the project. He explained that the resolution was written that “the Board
recommends that Common Council authorize the Mayor to sign all the contracts and the
Superintendent authorized to sign the construction documents” which would be the
award of bid. He explained that the Board would be awarding the bid contingent upon
Common Council funding the project. He explained that Common Council would not be
meeting until early in January, that this could actually be brought back to the Board if it
wanted since the Board would hold a voting meeting within the 45 days of the bid, so
roughly until January 26th. He stated that the Board could request that Common Council
authorize the funds and bring the resolution back to the Board to award the bid.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he appreciates the efficiencies of all of this but he is
concerned that the Board is authorizing itself into a state of rubber stamping and
projecting and deferral. He further stated that as everyone knows, he jealously guards
the turf of this Board for reasons that are broader and bigger than anyone of us here.
He really doesn’t want to dilute that authority in a way more dramatic than what is
already occurring, so he would prefer that this be altered so that the Board will ask
Common Council to authorize the additional funds and then once they authorize it,
consistent with our bid window, we will sit down and do the job that we are required to
do.
DPW – Request to Amend Authorization for Capital Project #486 – South Aurora
Street Bridge over Six Mile Creek Project – Substitute Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
WHEREAS, a rehabilitation project for the South Aurora Street Bridge over Six Mile
Creek, P.I.N. 375380 (“the Project”), is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code as
administered by the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), as amended, that calls
for the apportionment of the costs such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal
funds and approximately 20% non-federal funds, and
WHEREAS, the City received bids for this project on December 11, 2006, and the low
bid of $1,528,292.66 exceeded the project’s estimated construction cost of
$1,286,048.7 now, therefore, the Board of Public Works duly convened, does hereby,
RESOLVE, That the Board of Public Works recommends that Common Council amend
Capital Project 486 “South Aurora Street Bridge over Six Mile Creek” by an additional
amount of $253,293 for a total of $1,995,293, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works notes that if this project be undertaken,
the final cost of the City of Ithaca will be approximately five percent (5.0%) of the final
approved project cost, currently estimated at $99,764.93 of the $1,995,293 authorized
for this project, in monies and in-kind services, as managed by the Superintendent of
the Public Works and monitored by the City of Ithaca Controller.
Motion to Approve Substitute Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
RESOLVED, That the above substitute resolution for the Request to Amend
Authorization for Capital Project #486 – South Aurora Street Bridge over Six Mile Creek
be considered in place of the original resolution provided with the agenda.
Carried Unanimously
Power to Act – Regarding South Aurora Street Bridge Project over Six Mile Creek
- Resolution:
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Schlather
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act regarding the South Aurora Street
Bridge Project over Six Mile Creek at their January 3, 2007 Committee of the Whole
Meeting.
Carried Unanimously
Superintendent Gray thanked the Board for their work to amend the resolution which he
should have done before it was included with the agenda packets.
Board of Public Works – December 20, 2006- Page 11
Request to Waive Penalties for Water Bills – Resolution
By Commissioner Wykstra: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received and reviewed a request to waive
penalties for water bills incurred at 207 Pleasant Street and billed to the property owner,
Sharon Cappiello, and
WHEREAS, it is the Board’s practice to waive any penalties during the period that the
City has been notified that the bill is being protested and submitted for review, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board waives any penalties that may have accrued between
August 11 and August 15, 2006, as well as any penalties that may have accrued
between November 2, 2006, and 20 days after the date of this resolution or 10 days
after official notice of Board action is mailed to Ms. Cappiello, whichever is longer. All
other penalties stand.
Carried Unanimously
Staff Reports:
Asst. Supt. Ferrel reported that staff installed the light poles on Inlet Island and lights will
be going up soon to help create a safer parking lot.
Mayor Peterson stated that there was an editorial in the Ithaca Journal about capital
monies for Southside Community Center and GIAC in relation to the Southside issue.
She further stated that they were totally wrong with what happened at Southside.
Southside Community Center does not have a defective heating system in the building,
and because it is a police matter that is still under investigation.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that with the warm weather crews have not been plowing
snow, but cleaning up the graffiti. He further stated that at Seneca Street garage they
are so active that it gets cleaned in the morning and in the afternoon; someone also
went from Thompson Park all the way down Willow Avenue; hit every stop sign, every
bridge abutment, Auburn Park, and the new playground equipment there. So crews
been very busy with those duties.
Supt. Gray reported that staff has also been talking about different types of surveillance
equipment because the Police can’t be everywhere all the time and we’d like to try to
assist them and so we’re looking at ways to do that.
Commissioner Schlather stated that a joint meeting of the Board of Public Works and
Common Council needs to be scheduled with respect to the new water plant.
Mayor Peterson responded that a joint meeting of CC/BPW has been scheduled on
January 11, 2007 from 6 pm to 9 pm. to discuss water plant issues.
Mayor Peterson wished the Board a happy holiday and they extended their best wishes
to her as well for the holidays.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor