HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-06-20BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. June 20, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (5) - Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
Assistant City Engineer – West
Deputy Director of Planning and Development - Cornish
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Transportation Engineer – Logue
Engineering Aid - Johnson
Executive Assistant - Grunder
EXCUSED:
Commissioner Jenkins
Mayor Peterson explained the first item on the agenda would be a public hearing on the
100 Block of North Aurora Street improvements. She noted that the legal notice
indicated the public hearing was for March 20, 2007 instead of June 20, 2007. She
stated that since people are here for the public hearing the Board would proceed with it.
She stated that the Board would also call for another public hearing on this topic for
June 27, 2007, or at a date to be determined
100 Block of North Aurora Street – Public Hearing
Resolution to Open Public Hearing:
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the public hearing on the 100 Block of North Aurora Street
Improvements be declared open.
Carried Unanimously
The following people addressed the Board in support of the proposed improvements to
the 100 block of North Aurora Street:
Peter Browning, owner of Viva Tacqueria
Jan Zeserson, Town of Ithaca, representing the City of Ithaca Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Council
Tomas Harrington, General Manager of Viva Tacqueria
Gary Ferguson, Director of Downtown Ithaca Alliance, reported that the Board of the
Downtown Ithaca Alliance met and approved a resolution in support of this project. He
stated that the Downtown Ithaca Alliance received a grant from New York State Main
Street Grant Program, and part of that grant is for public amenities on the secondary
Commons, including Aurora Street. He stated that City staff suggested that the State
might be willing to re-program some of the grant money for the proposed historic
streetlamps. He has contacted the State and is awaiting a response from them.
Peter Ciferri, owner of Simeons, addressed the Board to ask what the timeline for this
project would be and how long the construction would take.
Mack Travis, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board as the Chair of the Government
Relations Committee of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance Board. He stated that they fully
support this project, particularly the option that includes the trees, utility upgrades, soil
work, and concrete work.
2
June 20, 2007
Carolyn Grigorov, Town of Ithaca, owner of Contemporary Trends, addressed the Board
to encourage timely replacement of any trees removed. She voiced support for the
proposed new streetlights as well.
Motion to Recess the Public Hearing Until Wednesday June 27, 2007 or a Time to
be Determined:
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Schlather
RESOLVED That the Board recess the public hearing on the 100 Block of North Aurora
Street Improvements until Wednesday, June 27, 2007, or a time to be determined.
Carried Unanimously
100 Block of North Aurora Street – Discussion
Traffic Engineer Logue explained that staff prepared a resolution that is divided into
three parts for the proposed project for the Board’s consideration. One part determines
the scope of the project including sidewalk work, curb work, the related tree work, and
the underground utilities for street lighting. He explained that the cost of the project
would depend on the option chosen. He further explained that part of the decision
determines how much of the project the Board wants staff to undertake. The second
part is a recommendation to Common Council, through the City Administration
Committee, to establish a capital project to pay for the project. He further stated that
staff would use the uniform sidewalk improvement policy in the City Charter to charge
back the cost of the sidewalk work to the abutting property owners.
Assistant City Engineer West stated that the Mayor requested a breakdown of costs for
the various proposed alternatives of this project. He provided this breakdown to Board
members and reviewed what work was included in each option and the various costs
involved. He noted staff’s recommendations to the Board as well and what the City’s
current contract with Economy Paving includes in relation to the proposed
improvements to the street.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the time line for the additional work by the
Water & Sewer division, the Streets & Facilities division, and Economy Paving. Further
discussion followed on the floor regarding the specific work to be completed and the fact
that all of this work is weather dependent as well. The goal of staff is to have the
majority of the work done by August 17, 2007. Further discussion followed on the floor
regarding the costs of each alternative, the short window of time to complete the project,
and whether or not there was any flexibility in the timeline.
Superintendent Gray explained that DPW crews are only able to undertake this project
because the Cliff Street repaving project has been pushed back again by the State.
Alderperson Coles explained that there should be a clear understanding about what
DPW crews can and cannot do because when this proposal goes to City Administration
that information is critical. She further stated that there have been repeated requests for
sidewalks in many other parts of the City and noted that this is a significant investment
being made in the downtown area.
Commissioner Tripp stated that when the Board first heard about this proposal, it was
explained to them as “a neat thing that can happen, some of the work is taking place
already, and it probably won’t cost the city anything because staff would charge the cost
back to the property owners.” She further noted that staff also assured the Board that
there would not be any opposition to this project and there would be full support by
affected property owners. However, the Board has heard from some people that they
are not at all interested in participating in the costs. She stated that for those reasons
she is less enthusiastic about the project than she had hoped to be and noted that if she
votes for it at all it will be for the most frugal of the options.
3
June 20, 2007
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the possibility of modifying one of the options
so that instead of clear cutting all the trees down on the block that a few trees a year
were removed so that it might save some money and keep the street a little more
aesthetically pleasing. Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded that would end up cutting the fresh
concrete around the tree pits to remove the stump and soil and install fresh structural
soil before replanting the trees so you would be doing double work in certain areas.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the proposed street lighting, the
current placement of street lamps and the cost involved in removing and replacing
them, what types of lamps being considered, and how they will improve pedestrian
lighting along the street.
Asst. City Engineer West stated that he and Transportation Engineer Logue met with
Alderperson Coles, City Controller Thayer, City Forester Hillman, and the Mayor
regarding financing. The City Controller expressed concern about the cost of the
proposed work to be contracted out. He further stated that staff thoughts are that they
could make this work was part of Economy Paving’s project who is the contractor
working on the South Aurora Street bridge project. The additional paving work, curb
work, and any of the sidewalk work might push the limits of what the City would be
entitled to add onto their contract. The City Controller is concerned about the estimated
cost of the whole project and thinks that work performed under the uniform sidewalk
improvements program would be limited to new sidewalks only, and not for the full
expense of structural soil, repair of the tree pits, the new curbing, or the brickwork.
Recommendation to Create a Capital Project to Widen Sidewalks in the 100 Block
of North Aurora Street and Intent to Assess a Portion of the Cost through the
Uniform Sidewalk Improvement - Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received a petition from property owners
and restaurant owners on the 100 block of North Aurora Street to widen sidewalks, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works authorized Engineering staff to prepare design
alternatives and cost estimates for the project, and
WHEREAS, in May and June 2007, the Board of Public Works selected a preferred
alternative for the resetting of curb, additional sidewalk, tree plantings, and utilities, and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, the Disability Advisory Council,
and the Commons Advisory Board have discussed and are in favor of the project, and
WHEREAS, the cost of this project can be partially apportioned to abutting property
owners under the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy in accordance with the City
Charter, and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2007, the Board of Public Works held and will be holding
another public hearing at a date to be determined, which was noticed in the official
paper on June 15, 2007, in regard to this project, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves and adopts the following
plans (commonly designated Streetscape A-4) prepared by the Office of the City
Engineer for the 100 block of North Aurora Street:
Reset curb and widen sidewalks
Rehabilitate street trees and tree pits
Place underground conduit and bases for future street lighting, and noting that
new street lighting should be installed reasonably soon thereafter, as funds
become available
and be it further
4
June 20, 2007
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends to Common Council that a
capital project for Sidewalk Improvements in the 100 Block of North Aurora Street be
established in the amount of $130,000, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs that sidewalks be widened on the
100 block of North Aurora Street in accordance with Uniform Sidewalk Improvement
policy, pursuant to plans and specifications prepared by the Office of the City Engineer
and under the direction of the Superintendent of Public Works, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works requests the Department of Public Works
to use all efforts to recapture as much of this project cost from Water & Sewer, adjacent
property owners, and other interested agencies and parties; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works requests that the expanded use of the
sidewalk for non-exclusive commercial purposes be included in the Board of Public
Works ongoing discussion and deliberation with respect to licensing fees.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the City has aging infrastructure and that the 100
block of North Aurora Street has problems in terms of the wiring, sidewalk areas, and
tree grate areas that lead to liability issues. He noted that the trees themselves are in
their last years of useful life. He further stated that he is looking at the costs of this
project as something the City would incur in due course, the due course being sooner
rather than later. He stated that if you look at this in the long view, the extra cost of the
proposal as opposed to just replacing existing infrastructure is not huge. He further
stated that the cost of the project may only be $100,000 of which the adjacent property
owners would be paying approximately $25,000 leaving the City’s cost to be
somewhere between $75,000 and $90,000. In exchange for that we are getting a block
that has been infrastructurally re-built that will be useful to the City for another thirty
years. The City is also getting an amenity that in fact could generate increased tax
revenue. He noted that the City would then get an opportunity to bring the use of
additional public space into the licensing sphere since the City is allowing commercial
entities a non-exclusive use of a public area and public right-of-way for profit and he
encouraged the Board to support this proposal.
Alderperson Coles stated that there are areas in the City where she has had to tell
homeowners and people with kids who wait for buses on very narrow stretches of land
without a sidewalk, that the City is not able to build sidewalks at this time because of the
high cost. Sidewalks are particularly needed on Cliff Street where children wait for
school buses and literally stand in an area that is only one foot away from the street.
She further stated that this is a considerable amount of money for a very short block of
the City and there are other areas in the City that need the same consideration.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated, again, that the Disability Advisory Council fully supports
this project. He further stated this project would resolve many of the access issues on
the secondary Commons.
Commissioner Tripp stated that she would be voting against this resolution. She thinks
that widening the sidewalk and repairing or replacing any tripping hazards is a good
idea. She further stated that cutting down all the trees at once is not a good idea. She
noted that this is a lot to spend on a project that is not part of a comprehensive plan for
downtown.
Commissioner Wykstra voiced support for the project and urged the Board to support it
as well.
Commissioner Chapman noted that a previous speaker brought up the fact that this is a
positive precedent for the City to undertake a project in this way that will address and
encourage pedestrian access of downtown. He feels that anytime the City is doing this
amount of work in the right way that includes accessibility issues, pedestrian issues,
and so forth for a project that started out as an improvement for vehicles is the way to
proceed for this and future projects. He thinks that staff has come up with a good
recommendation for making it a much more pedestrian user friendly and livable
5
June 20, 2007
downtown block. He noted that this block is the heart of our downtown and that it
requires this extra work and attention.
Mayor Peterson stated that she does support some kind of improvements as suggested
in this proposal. She stated that she is not going to vote against it at this point and
would support the motion to send this to Common Council for further review.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Chapman, Dotson, Schlather, Wykstra, Peterson
Nays (1) Tripp
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Award of Demolition of City-Owned Building at 410-426 Taughannock Boulevard -
Resolution
By Commissioner Wykstra: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp
WHEREAS, bids for the demolition of 410-426 Taughannock Boulevard were received
on June 14, 2007, and five bids were received, and
WHEREAS, funding for the demolition of 410-426 Taughannock Boulevard is available
through City Capital Project 711, and
WHEREAS, bids have been reviewed and tabulated by staff and K.E.K. Excavators,
547 Oswegatchie Road, Palatine Bridge, NY 13428 has been confirmed as the lowest
qualified bidder, and
WHEREAS, all bidders submitted proper documentation including bid bonds or a check
securing the bid in the proper amount, and
WHEREAS, staff recommend that the demolition contract be awarded to Excavators,
547 Oswegatchie Road, Palatine Bridge, NY 13428, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED That the Board of Public Works awards the contract for demolition of the
building at 410-426 Taughannock Boulevard to K.E.K. Excavators, 547 Oswegatchie
Road, Palatine Bridge, NY 13428 for their low bid of $27,638.00 and authorizes the
Superintendent of Public Works to sign all necessary construction documents,
contracts, certifications, and vouchers.
Commissioner Tripp asked if some background information could be provided to the
Board on this project.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel explained that the City obtained this parcel when the new health
center was proposed. He stated that the building is a block building and unfortunately, it
is full of mildew and mold. The City is proposing that it be demolished and the short-
term plan is for the construction of a parking lot to aid businesses in the Inlet Island
district. He stated that there is a $100,000 capital project funded this year for
construction of the parking lot and the surface will be made of the millings that are being
taken off the Elmira Road project.
Commissioner Schlather asked how many cars would be accommodated in the new
parking lot once it is completed.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel stated that the plan he submitted for this capital project was for 80 to
100 spaces.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the possibility of installing pay
stations, what the costs would be to implement that program, and if that should be
included in the proposed resolution.
6
June 20, 2007
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
RESOLVED, That an additional Resolved clause be added to the resolution that would
read as follows:
“RESOLVED, That any resulting public parking area that is established at this site be a
“pay” system area.”
Carried Unanimously
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion as amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Motorcycle Parking in City Garages:
Kent Johnson, Engineering Aide, addressed the Board to explain that he met with
Commissioners Tripp and Dotson, and Superintendent Gray about this topic and they
came up with a number of recommendations that they think will at least resolve some
problems and they hope not create any others.
He explained that in the Seneca Street parking garage they would recommend the
following:
Installation of two signs that would read “Parking Area for Motorcycles”
Installation of four signs that would read “Warning: Motorcycles and Motor
scooters do not ride under the gate, follow the arrow”
That the words “Motorcycles” be stenciled within an area with an arrow at both
entrance and exit gates
That a designated parking area for motorcycles and motor scooters be
demarcated by painting a large rectangle in the area just south of the Tioga
Street garage entrance, just north of the stairs
The words “Bicycle Parking Only” be stenciled in the current bicycle parking area
That the handicap parking sign be removed from one handicap space that is
currently in the area where a recommended motorcycle and motor scooter area
be placed
He stated that the plan is that by making the changes it will be clear that only bicycles
should be parking in one area, that motorcycles should not go under the arm, that
motorcycles and mopeds should park in the open motorcycle and moped parking area,
and to relocate the handicap parking space. The recommendation is for signage only.
He further explained that at this point only one handicap space would be removed. He
stated that construction of new TCAT bus shelter includes new handicap parking
spaces so the one being lost will be restored very quickly and that there would actually
be extra handicap parking spaces once TCAT completes their construction. However,
for a short period of time there will be the loss of that one space.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding how many handicap parking spaces are
currently in the Seneca Street garage and what ADA requirements are. Further
discussion followed on the floor regarding how many of the handicap parking spaces
are van accessible. Discussion also followed on how motorcycles and mopeds would
pay for parking in the garages.
Engineering Aide Johnson explained that there are a number of improvements that
could happen with the gates and the sensors for the smaller scooters and motorcycles
at the parking garages and those are being investigated. However, they are not needed
at this point to let motorcycles and scooters in and out of the garage safely. He further
stated that at this point it is hard to know what the demand is going to be since we are
not really inviting motorcycle and scooter users in there. The hope was to do something
relatively simple to start with to be able to get a sense of what the real demand is. If it
7
June 20, 2007
seems like there is not a whole lot of demand, then it may not warrant a lot of extra
investigation and more sophisticated gate systems or things like that. If it turns out that
there really is a very high demand, then it probably would warrant really looking at the
better gate systems. He noted this proposal was the simplest thing that could be done in
the short term to allow motorcycles to use the garages and not have to wait for the other
technical details to be worked out concerning pay stations.
Commissioner Tripp stated that this by no means solves all problems with parking, but
what it does attempt to do is respond to concerns about the bicycle parking, and the
concerns of motorcyclists wanting to park in the garages.
Superintendent Gray stated that the Board’s original resolution directs staff to
investigate and provide designated spaces for motorcycle, moped, and bicycle parking
in the garages, so staff just needs the Board’s approval of these recommendations in
order to proceed with implementation.
Commissioner Schlather requested that the minutes reflect the Board’s support of the
recommendations.
City Water Supply Decision
Mayor Peterson stated that Superintendent Gray, City Attorney Hoffman, Asst. Supt.
Whitney, City Controller Thayer, Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish,
Alderperson Cogan, and she met to talk about Water Plant issues and that she wanted
the City Attorney to update the Board on that discussion.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that some aspects of that meeting need to be
discussed during an advice of counsel session and suggested the Board request that in
order to cover some of those items. He stated that he distributed a summary of some of
the developments to date to the Board as well. He stated that the history of the City
contracting with O’Brien & Gere can be traced back to 1996 when the City was looking
at this issue somewhat differently than it is today. He explained there was an initial
contract in 1996 and a second contract in 2005; and the City is still operating under that
contract in his opinion. In between that in 1999 when Common Council adopted its
budget for 2000, it established a capital project for the water source issue in the amount
of six million dollars. In 2005, Common Council, not the Board of Public Works,
authorized the expenditure of $119,600 which is the amount offered and requested by
O’Brien & Gere for their new contract. Common Council authorized that amount in two
components, $49,600 for alternative selection and an environmental assessment form
and then $70,000, if needed, for supporting studies and an environmental impact
statement. That $70,000 was to be expended only upon the approval of the Board and
the Mayor. The monies were spent heading toward that $49,000 figure and on April 11.
2007 this Board authorized the Mayor to execute an addendum. He noted that the
Board has not approved the minutes of April 25th, however, he did obtain a draft of
those minutes, which included the resolution on addenda to the O’Brien & Gere
contract. He stated that as it is drafted it indicates that the Board approved the
addendum for the performance of the scoping phase of the environmental impact
statement together with the special seasonally dependent supporting studies of
biological community. One addendum was negotiated and prepared for the so-called
biological studies, field studies along the route of the Bolton Point new line, and in Six
Mile Creek that was for $51,500 and the Spring work was done by O’Brien and Gere.
He stated that at that point, the City did not have a dollar amount from O’Brien & Gere
for the cost of the scoping process. That amount was subsequently submitted as
$45,400 and work was beginning on producing that addendum. At that point, O’Brien &
Gere submitted a new proposal for a much larger amount which included not just
scoping but also preparation of environmental impact statement and certain related
design work which was intended to inform the scoping process and that was for a total
of $1,150,000.00. So, there were two different proposals from O’Brien & Gere and there
was no specific action taken on either of those by the Board.
8
June 20, 2007
Commissioner Schlather stated that the City Attorney was missing a piece of the chronology.
He said that the Board had a special meeting on April 25, 2007,
and at that meeting there was a resolution wherein the Board authorized an addendum
to the O’Brien & Gere contract, for up to $608,000 in additional monies, as the Superintendent
deems necessary. That resolution was approved by a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Schlather
said that at that meeting he had questioned whether any additional funding was necessary. He
noted that at that meeting, the Board had Attorney Hoffman’s letter to O’Brien & Gere dated
April 19th, where the City Attorney had set forth a different approach. Also at that meeting, City
Controller Thayer submitted a summary of the budget for Capital Project #510, in the form of a
spreadsheet dated April 20, 2007. He noted that $6 million had been allocated for the water
supply project when the City 2000 budget was adopted. The Board also had the O’Brien &
Gere material wherein they proposed additional work costing $608,520, in a document entitled
“Ithaca Water Supply Project.” Commissioner Schlather explained that those were his notes
from that meeting; he said the Board authorized the expenditure of an additional $608,000 from
the existing capital project because the Board was aware that there was a $6 million capital
project established for this project.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that April 25, 2007 was a special meeting and it was
convened at a time that neither the Mayor nor he could attend; and neither one of them
were informed about the action the Board took at that meeting.
Commissioner Schlather apologized to the Mayor and City Attorney that this action was
not reported to them and agreed that somebody should have brought this to their
attention. He stated that the Board had a long discussion about the resolution and as a
result it was approved.
Mayor Peterson questioned why there was an addendum prepared for $1,150,000 on
May 8th, if the Board voted for $608,000 at the special meeting on April 25, 2007.
Commissioner Schlather responded that the Board voted for the $608,000 because that
was the number proposed in the O’Brien & Gere cost estimate for SEQR. O’Brien &
Gere then sent a letter on May 9, 2007 requesting $1,150,000. The difference in cost
was explained to the Board as including partial design work for each of the two options
priced roughly at $250,000 per option. He further stated he would like to get a sense
from staff, given the scope of these two projects, if the amount proposed by O’Brien &
Gere is reasonable. He further stated that he has no reason to believe that O’Brien &
Gere is causing undue expenditure. He noted that he has been impressed with their
good faith efforts and the work that has resulted from those efforts.
Superintendent Gray explained that the $1,150,000 is a number that he asked the
Board for because he wanted to make an allowance for preliminary design work. He
stated that he does not intend to spend all that money but he also has every intention of
keeping the project going because he is three years behind his timeline. He further
stated that the City will end up spending a couple million dollars in design fees
depending on which option is chosen, and he wanted to avoid the time involved in
coming back to the Board for authorization each time additional funding was needed in
order to move forward with the project.
Discussion followed on the floor about what information the Board had received and
what information the Mayor and City Attorney received regarding this topic and whether
everyone had complete information.
Commissioner Tripp stated that the Board shares the Mayor’s goal of moving forward
with this project, however, she feels that there is an underlying question that is not being
answered concerning whether or not this Board has the right to use the six million
dollars established for this capital project.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that in September 2005, Common Council, for
whatever reason, took upon itself to issue a specific authorization for only $119,600. He
stated that appears to him that Common Council wanted to maintain a certain amount of
control of expenditures in this area. He further responded that the resolution Common
Council approved in 2005 specifically refers to the Water Source capital project.
9
June 20, 2007
Alderperson Coles stated that it is her understanding, having been part of that vote, that
Common Council was simply approving things that were coming before them and not
setting any limitations upon what could be expended over a certain period of time. She
further stated that there was never a discussion by Common Council that gave any
indication about how money should be spent, and whether or not the Board of Public
Works would be limited by that resolution. She further stated that it was Common
Council’s understanding this authorization was needed in order to move forward with
the project.
Mayor Peterson responded that the intent of Common Council when they passed the
resolution for that specific amount was to maintain a certain amount of control over the
expenditures from that capital project.
Commissioner Schlather stated that at a joint meeting of Common Council and this
Board, Common Council made it very clear that the Board of Public Works was charged
with the responsibility of doing the environmental review. The issue of Common Council
authorizing a specific amount in 2005 should not be an issue because they already
authorized a capital project for six million dollars. The real issue that has been alluded
to is whether or not the September 2005 authorization for a contract with O’Brien &
Gere can some how be a limiting device with respect to amending the contract with
O’Brien & Gere. He further stated that there is no way that the FEIS for a project of this
magnitude, given the City’s history, was going to be done for $120,000. That coupled
with Common Council’s direction that the Board do the full environmental review,
coupled with the fact that there is six million dollars available for this project tells him
that the Board should proceed. He thinks the concern raised by Common Council’s
action in 2005 is does the Board of Public Works have authorization to proceed or not
and this is where there is some conflict of opinion.
Mayor Peterson questioned why, if the Board authorized the addendum to the O’Brien &
Gere contract on April 25, 2007, have the consultants stopped working on this project.
She stated that is why there is confusion and this discussion is taking place. She further
stated that she has not seen anything from O’Brien and Gere since the April 25th vote.
Commissioner Schlather stated the Board received the completed scoping document at
the end of May and it was circulated. He further stated that Rick Gell from O’Brien &
Gere was here in May as well. He further stated that with respect to getting a contract
signed, if the contract was not signed following the April 25th meeting, it ought to be
because the Board authorized it.
Mayor Peterson stated that if the Board is comfortable moving forward at this time, then
it should affirm that today.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the Board approved the scoping document, on
June 6, 2007, and asked for some very small changes to the table of contents. He
further stated that the Board scheduled Monday, June 18th and possibly June 28th for
public scoping meetings. His question is that after the meeting of June 6th, which was
the last time there was any discussion, has the completed scoping document been
updated, and the meetings scheduled.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish responded that the scoping
document had been updated, but not circulated.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding when the scoping document should be
circulated and when public scoping meetings should be scheduled.
Mayor Peterson asked the Board if they were ready to move forward with the draft-
scoping document and the addendum to the O’Brien & Gere contract.
10
June 20, 2007
Discussion followed on the floor with Board members expressing some frustration with
the differences of opinion that have been expressed and the process to this point with
each step of the project. It is difficult for the Board to move forward when there seems
to be other things going on outside their meetings regarding this process and
communication breaking down in some instances. For example, the Board heard from
the Fire Department early on in this process regarding their serious safety concerns with
the proposed water supply options. Acting Mayor Cogan was at one of the Board’s
meetings recently and reported that he had spoken with the Fire Department and they
were no longer concerned about whether it was gravity fed or not. It is troubling to the
Board about what is taking place outside of their meetings which affect decisions being
made about this project. It is unfortunate that the minutes from the April 25, 2007
meeting were not circulated and approved because that might have alleviated some of
these issues.
Commissioner Chapman stated that this once again brings up the issue of minutes. He
further stated that if the Chair of the Board of Public Works does not have minutes, and
is not aware of what has been happening, then there is obviously a big problem. He
would like to see all the minutes done and approved before the Board moves forward so
that they have a clear record of what took place at each meeting.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding whether or not an addendum to the
contract had been prepared by staff, the amount included in the addendum, and the
status of the contract.
Commissioner Schlather stated there is something to be learned from all of this, but at
least from his standpoint, he thinks that it is extremely important that the Board move
forward with the project. He further stated that the Board relied upon the opinion of the
City Controller who came to the April 25, 2007 meeting when making their decision. The
City Controller reported to them that the funds were available and that it had the right to
proceed on that basis. It is unfortunate that the Mayor and City Attorney were not
informed of that decision. He stated that he wished that somehow that information had
been conveyed. He further stated there may be some internal issues that need to be
dealt with but they should not stand in the way of this project moving forward.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor