HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-01-10BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. January 10, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Deputy City Controller - Andrew
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
Executive Assistant - Grunder
EXCUSED:
DAC Liaison – Roberts
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Peterson reminded Board members that there would be joint meeting of
Common Council and the Board of Public Works on Thursday, January 11, 2007 to talk
about the Water Plant.
Mayor Peterson stated that she has been working with Engineering Technician, Kent
Johnson, to send out invitations to revive the Transportation Demand Management
committee. She further stated that invitations to serve on a committee for the Local
Action Plan for Green House Gas Emissions in the City of Ithaca have been sent out as
well. Both committees will be a mix of city staff, experts in the field, and members of
the public. She reported that her office is also trying to establish a date for the first
meeting of the Martin Luther King, Jr. committee.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Guy Gerard, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding the decision on the Water
Plant.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding the renaming of certain
city landmarks in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and comments the public has made
regarding this item. She further discussed the Town of Ithaca transportation meeting
regarding speed limits and mopeds.
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC:
Commissioner Dotson responded to comments made regarding mopeds.
Youth Bureau Deputy Director, Liz Vance, addressed the Board to provide an update
regarding the proposal for a dock at Stewart Park. A capital project for the construction
of the dock was approved as part of the 2007 city budget. A RFP for the project has
been written.
BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT:
Johnson Controls – Contract Status Report
Superintendent Gray reported that he has a meeting next week with Johnson Controls
to go over a number of items in the contract including a breakdown of the schedules for
all the projects at various locations. He will use that information to work with the
department heads to make sure that they are comfortable with the scope of the work to
be done. He has scheduled meetings with both the Youth Bureau and GIAC, and he is
in the process of contacting the Police and Fire departments.
2
January 10, 2007
He also has meetings next week to discuss the work Johnson Controls has done on the
water meters and to check calibrations. He will come back to the Board to make
decisions about changing out all the meters or keeping them and upgrading them.
HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS:
Power to Act – Sidewalk Assessments - Resolution
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Chapman
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works grants itself Power to Act at its meeting of
January 17, 2007 in order to consider sidewalk assessments for 2005 and 2006 in
accordance with §C-73, Sidewalks of the City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
Initial Project Proposal – 2007 TIP Update:
The City’s Transportation Improvement (TIP) program competes with the County’s
program and the State highway program for money in the region. The City’s program is
approximately $19 million dollars and covers bicycle, pedestrian, bridge, and road
projects as well as traffic signals. There is a list of other projects that the City competes
with for a total of $86 million dollars for a five-year period of proposed projects. Projects
are submitted into a selection process and they are ranked by priority. There is a
meeting next month where representatives from Region 3 will sit down and review the
initial ranking submitted. This will be when the City will get its first feedback on its
submitted projects. The City then gets a chance to update and/or improve the project
proposal. Proposals go into the State transportation improvement program and the
State will be notified by the Federal government about actual funding allocations.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC:
Commissioner Dotson stated that at last week’s meeting the Board discussed odd/even
parking and parking tickets and Superintendent Gray mentioned putting something
together for the Board to review on this. She was wondering when the Board might
expect to see that information.
Superintendent Gray reported that Traffic Engineer Logue had found the definitions of
all the terms. He has been asked to go back and get all the ticket data from the
preceding two years. He hopes to have this information to the Board by next week.
He also asked Traffic Engineer Logue to find an odd/even report that former BPW
Commissioner Joseph Daley produced.
South Aurora Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project - Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp
WHEREAS, the attached bids have been received for the Rehabilitation of the South
Aurora Street Bridge Over Six-Mile Creek on December 11, 2006, and
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 bids have been reviewed and tabulated by Staff and Delta Engineers,
the project consultant. Economy Paving Co., Inc. has been confirmed as the low
bidder. All of the bidders submitted the proper documentation including a 5% bid bond
with their bids, and
WHEREAS, the City has received a recommendation to award from the Project
Consultant (Delta Engineers), and Common Council has made the necessary budget
adjustment to the capital project budget, increasing it to $1,995,293 as requested by the
Board, now therefore be it
3
January 10, 2007
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works awards the bid to Economy Paving,
Cortland, New York, for their low bid of $1,528,292.66 and authorizes 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 undertakes this project with the
understanding that the final cost of the City of Ithaca will be approximately five percent
(5%) 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.
Carried Unanimously
WATER AND SEWER:
West Hill Boil Water Advisory – After Action Report
Superintendent Gray explained that one of the largest outages of water that he had
experienced occurred on November 29, 2006. It started with a water main break and
eventually impacted approximately 400 services. Usually when this occurs the mains
can be kept live and the outage is limited to very few houses or one block. In this
instance, it became bigger than expected because that particular pressure zone covers
a very large portion of West Hill. If water starts draining down the hill and can’t be
valved off it can pull the vacuum on the upper part of the hill that creates a potential for
contamination to be pulled into the water main. This results in the City having to issue a
boil water order until the mains are tested to make sure that they weren’t contaminated.
The City found that the water system functioned well when it was re-filled and tested
clean. There were problems with the way our public communications worked. In this
instance, the City used the GIS system and the mapping worked very well. It allowed
people in the office with all the records to produce the information for the people in the
field. The City was able to contact and put out individual notices which were hand
delivered to all the properties. There was one property that was missed in the process
of doing that where a boil water order was not hand delivered. In addition, news
releases were sent to the local media outlets. There was confusion among residents
who thought they needed to boil water when they weren’t included in the advisory area.
Other residents felt that the City should have posted the relevant information on its
website.
Assistant Superintendent Whitney explained that the two tanks on West Hill on Oakcrest
and Cliff Park are both supplied by the Vinegar Hill pump station. There are three paths
for water to make it up to the Cliff Park pump station, it comes up Vinegar Hill and then
down Hector Street and up either Hopper or Sunrise or Elm Street all the way to the top
to the Cliff Park tank. Immediately after the break Water & Sewer crews realized that the
Cliff Park tank was draining rather rapidly and knew that there were three supply routes
so they put a crew up there in addition to the ones repairing the valve. Three valves
were closed in the system. They have probably been closed since the last time they
were exorcised which was about seven years ago. The
City is going to reconstitute a valve exorcising program and make sure that everybody
knows that the valves are “open right” valves rather than “open left” valves. The City
may also want to look at balancing the flow on that hillside. The original design for West
Hill was a 12” main which ran clear across the hill onto Taylor Place. The middle of that
system was left out for cost reasons because they hit rock and didn’t have the
equipment to deal with it. Currently, there is a 12” main on either side and a blank in the
middle fed by a 6” hose intended to be fed by a 12” hose.
This was the first real test for the GIS team to work with the field crews. It was a good
test and produced a perfect document. Houses in the Town of Ithaca that are served by
City water are not represented on the City’s GIS map. There is a service line
represented and the one house located over the border at 500 Elm Street (Town of
Ithaca) was the residence that City missed in the notification process. As a result of the
after action review, the GIS crew has made sure that they have the foot print for the
4
January 10, 2007
Town of Ithaca houses that are served by the City so that our field crews can see that
there is a house there to deliver a notice to.
Discussion followed on the floor on what it would take to install 12” hose where there
currently is only a 6”, the access needed to do that work, and what the costs would be.
Further discussion followed on the floor on how the proposed new housing on Floral
Avenue would affect water needs from the West Hill pump station.
Alderperson Coles stated that she wanted to comment on the incredible job the City did.
Not only were the notes hand delivered about boiling water, they were hand-delivered
again when the order had expired. Asst. Supt. Whitney was able to e-mail her some
maps and lists of addresses where the boil water orders were hand delivered so she
could respond to inquiries. It was a fine example of how best to serve the community.
The map was amazing, the list was amazing and she has had a huge number of e-mails
about what a great job the Water and Sewer department and the Department of Public
Works did. Residents were really pleased with what the City was able to provide in
terms of information. This was particularly important because there wasn’t just a notice
of a break, but it was a boil water order, so it was particularly critical. She stated that
she is very thankful for one of the City’s absolutely best departments and what they did
on that occasion.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he was impressed by how fast the staff of the
Water and Sewer department responded and how quickly they took care of the problem.
He further stated that Asst. Supt. Whitney came to a neighborhood meeting in
December and explained what had happened which was greatly appreciated.
REPORTS:
City Attorney Hoffman stated that on the last page of his memo regarding the final
decision making authority on the water plant options, pursuant to the City Charter, the
quoted language in the first paragraph, 4th line down, should say “subject to the
direction and review of Common Council” and then the same thing in the 3rd paragraph,
second line.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that the Mayor had asked him to review this issue and
produce an opinion. At the last meeting of the Board, Commissioner Schlather had
asked for the same thing and distributed his own statement about this issue. He
acknowledged the help of the City Clerk’s office in providing quite a bit of historical
material. What he found particularly significant was the fact that the original language
establishing the Board of Public Works was subsequently changed and some of the
more recent historical material that the City Clerk’s office provided indicates that there
was quite a debate in the early 1970’s about changing that language. It came to
Council several times before there was a positive vote in favor of the change in
language to remove the word “exclusive” before the word “control” in terms of the
authority of the Board of Public Works. At that time the language was also added to
state: “subject to the direction and review of Common Council”.
His review of the Common Council minutes from that time indicates that the Common
Council members were well aware of the implications of that. There had
been some fairly acrimonious debates and disagreements about the extension of City
water service to suburban areas just outside the City. The Board was balking at the
extension of service and there was a difference of opinion between the Board and
particularly the Mayor at that time, and perhaps Common Council as well. The
discussion became broader than that about the merits of an elected body making
certain determinations versus an appointed body. It was not a unanimous vote in 1972,
but it did carry 9-5 (Common Council had 14 members and wards at that time). The
Council did not conduct a public referendum on that change to the Charter and no one
noticed for about 24 years. In 1996, the Council decided to fix that by submitting several
of the changes to mandatory referendum. There was a vote in November 1996 on the
Charter change about the BPW authority and the public vote was in favor of making that
change. His opinion that the debate about curtailment of the authority of the Mayor to
the extent that the Mayor is a voting member of the Board of Public Works at any time
versus a voting member of Common Council only when there is a tie vote was
5
January 10, 2007
resolved by the referendum in 1996. He further thinks there was a conscious decision
on the part of the City residents to restrain the authority of the Board of Public Works or
to at least make it clear that Common Council ultimately had decision making authority
even with regard to the operational areas that are otherwise assigned to the Board of
Public Works. This was a deciding factor in his conclusion that if Common Council
decided to assume the authority to make this decision that it has the right to do that.
Common Council could also say that the Board of Public Works is the more appropriate
body to make this decision, and they will simply decide whether or not to allocate this
money.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the language “subject to direction and review”
implies that a decision is still being made by the original body but it is not exclusive.
That is the nub of the disagreement. Nobody is challenging that Common Council has
the right to review the decision that the BPW makes. The concern he has is that if the
Board is not given the opportunity to make the decision in the first place then you have
undermined all the other Charter provisions including that which has been quoted in the
memorandum. The Charter provisions say “shall have the power to adopt and execute
plans for the drainage of the City and the extension and improvements of present sewer
and water system and for providing any additional water supply system that may be
deemed necessary”. He agrees with the City Attorney in several respects. He agrees
with the observation that when the existing water system was put into place there was
no Board of Public Works and so this issue has not been truly addressed at this level
before. He agrees with the observation that the Board of Public Works power has been
stripped somewhat by the amendments of 1996, and that he was not aware of the
“exclusivity” provision pre 1972, but he certainly defers to that. He thinks that the City
Attorney agrees with him that any curtailment of the Mayor’s authority is subject to
mandatory referendum. The issue is if Common Council were to take over this decision
entirely, does that action curtail the Mayor’s voting authority as a member of the Board
of Public Works? If the answer to that is yes, then they can’t do it. If the answer to that
is no, then they can do it. He believes that “direction and review” means you’re
reviewing something and therefore you have to give the Board a chance to decide this
matter in the first instance.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that Commissioner Schlather makes an interesting
point, but he would note that the words “review and direction” are both in that new
language. If it were just “review” he would have to agree, but since it includes the word
“direction” as well direction can occur at the beginning, during, or after consideration.
Review obviously occurs after something else has happened. He would argue that the
word “direction” itself goes beyond the concept of review and he certainly had those
words in his mind when he was deliberating about this. Ultimately, because the Charter
does not say that a particular entity will decide on whether there should be a new water
source, it doesn’t give us that kind of exact guidance. People are going to have to
interpret language and reach their own conclusions.
Alderperson Coles stated that she has read both memos (Commissioner Schlather’s
and City Attorney Hoffman’s) and in addition to what has been said here, there is a
critical point for her in that elected officials are the ones more directly responsible to the
public for policy decisions. There are policy issues involved in this decision. Having said
that, as a liaison to this Board and as a member of Common Council, she thinks it is
critical that the Board make a recommendation to Common Council. There are only two
options, so if Common Council were not to agree with the recommendation that the
Board makes, there is only one other possible option. For many reasons, she would
like to see a joint decision made both by the Board and Common Council as she thinks
that would be the most democratic option for proceeding on this particular issue. She
does not agree that the Board has the power of making this decision and that the only
power that Common Council would have is to fund the decision.
Commissioner Schlather stated that there is no question that this decision involves
policy considerations that are broader than the Board’s purview. He understands all of
the potential policy issues and he agrees that at some point in the process Common
Council may wish to weigh in and give direction and review for what the Board does.
6
January 10, 2007
He has always viewed the Board of Public Works as an apolitical entity that is charged
with the responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the infrastructure of the City in a cost
effective and efficient manner. The real question for the group is which way do we want
to stand on this particular issue? Should the decision be deferred to Common Council or
does the Board wish to be heard and make a recommendation or finding. He would
like to know that the Board is standing together on this decision and he was hoping that
could be discussed today.
Supt. Gray stated that this exercise has sent him and the City Attorney back in time to
1907 through a lot of documentation. There was discussion at that time when the word
was “exclusive”. There were people who discussed the point that some decisions should
be made by an apolitical body because it works well and provides a certain kind of
continuity, and takes some decisions out of the political realm and puts them in a
planning realm. At that time they made a decision that would have worked that way.
Subsequently, as the City Attorney has laid it out, they tempered that decision. He read
a section out of Common Council minutes from 1909 which was the new Mayor’s
inaugural address because it referenced the Board of Public Works. The Mayor
described the creation of the Board of Public Works and explained that “their duties will
be onerous and their only reward will be the satisfaction that comes to every man of
public spirit of having, by private sacrifice, accomplished a common good.” He thinks
that this is a decision that the Board has the responsibility of making. Council not only
has the right, but they have the need to partake in that decision because they may or
may not fund it.
Commissioner Dotson stated that if Common Council states that they want to make the
decision that this Board should stop considering a recommendation. She thinks that
this Board has the experience of sitting with staff every week and dealing with the water
plant. She appreciates the turf issues and needing to keep Board of Public Works
issues at the Board of Public Works, but it is very confusing where the line actually
exists legally. She knows that once this Board gets close to that line, there is always
the question of whether Council or the Board will decide issue after issue. She stated
that it is better for the Board to give its advice and recommendation, but leave the
arguing of this issue aside in favor of looking at the question of whether to go with
Bolton Point or rebuild at the current site. That seems to be the discussion that this
Board needs to have rather than the discussion about turf issues.
Commissioner Tripp stated that she agrees with statements made by both
Commissioner Schlather and Dotson. She believes that it is this Board’s obligation to go
forward to gather information to make a finding/recommendation. This Board should go
ahead with what it is supposed to do which is to learn about water.
Mayor Peterson stated that Common Council really hasn’t had this discussion so she
doesn’t know how that will go.
Commissioner Wykstra asked that given all that has been discussed, should this Board
consider if it is going to proceed as if Common Council was not involved, do the
research, have the discussion with the City Engineers and go ahead and decide what
the Board thinks is best for the City and present the information to Common Council? It
is fine if Council wishes to be involved in discussing this at the same time because there
are some issues that they need to be involved in.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of the
environmental review element, which will require the designation of a lead agency. He
further stated that the Board or Common Council would be the lead agency for the re-
build option and Bolton Point may be involved in the purchase option. Information from
the environmental review information will have to form whatever ultimate decisions are
made.
Commissioner Dotson stated that the agenda for tomorrow night’s meeting includes
items regarding the decision-making steps and who makes the decision. She is
assuming that there should be an understanding of who would be lead agency for
conducting environmental review by the end of the meeting. It’s clear that the Board will
7
January 10, 2007
have to stay in collaboration with Common Council whether the Board takes the
informal lead and invites Council members to our meetings to stay informed about the
discussion, or whether it’s the other way around. One of those models would be the
most fruitful.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he wanted to be clear to the City Attorney that his
comment was that “if” the Board recommended or selected the Bolton Point project,
then the environmental review would not involve the City as the lead agency as the
O’Brien and Gere’s report specifically says that. The report said that the Board would be
an interested party, but would not be the lead agency, presumably the Southern Cayuga
Intermunicipal Water System would be the lead agency. If the City does the rebuild
option, the City is the lead agency. The question is whether we prepare an
environmental review on both options. The second issue is whether the City is free to
adopt a preferred option and then do the environmental review on that option as
opposed to being required to do environmental review on both options before deciding
the preferred option.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that pursuant to a conversation with an environmental
lawyer, the most defensible position for the City would be to conduct relatively equal
review of the two options that have been advanced. Even if one were termed preferred
you would spend or devote almost as much effort and analysis to the alternative as to
the preferred. In the end you wouldn’t really be saving much money by using the
preferred alternative approach, although you could.
Commissioner Schlather questioned whether that approach was defensible or not.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that the City received an opinion from someone who
said the best position is to treat them almost equally.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the environmental law attorney should be invited
and paid to be here for tomorrow’s meeting to render that opinion and answer
questions.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor