Loading...
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