HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-07-25BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. July 25, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
City Attorney - Hoffman
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Traffic Engineer Aide – Johnson
IPD Officer – Peters
EXCUSED:
Commissioner Tripp
DAC Liaison – Roberts
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Mayor Peterson requested that item #3 – Policy for Notification of Defects be moved up
to #2 on the agenda as City Attorney Hoffman would like to be present for the
discussion on this item and needs to leave early.
No Board member objected.
Mayor Peterson noted that two members of TCDog were present and wished to address
the Board regarding dog waste removal at the off-leash dog park, and asked Board
members if they wished to allow that, since this is not the regular voting meeting where
public speaking is included.
Commissioner Chapman stated that he received a call from Pat Pryor who told him that
members of TCDog had been led to believe that there would be a vote on this item at
today’s meeting; although this item is not on the agenda for action at today’s meeting.
The Board agreed to hear from representatives of TCDog before they began the
meeting.
Commissioner Jenkins arrived at 5:00 p.m.
Leon Kochian, Town of Lansing, read a statement written by Alicia Plotkin, TCDog
member regarding disposal of dog waste in the off leash dog park located on the
Festival Lands. The statement explained the discussions that have taken place
between members of TCDog and the Board concerning the removal of trash cans at the
Festival Lands by State Park personnel and TCDog’s request that the City replace and
maintain the trash receptacles for the collection of the dog waste. Members of TCDog
have been working with the City to see if a composting program could be implemented
at the off-leash dog park to take care of the dog waste. The City has explained that the
cost of providing composting services is prohibitive, as the 2007 budget did not include
this cost. TCDog members then met and made a commitment to raise the necessary
funds to give to the City to use to contract with a composting contractor to provide this
service. At the last meeting of the Board, TCDog’s offer was not approved and they
were asked to use the money they raised to privately contract with a contractor for this
service. TCDog members were not in favor of this proposal for various reasons. Their
presence at today’s meeting and the purpose of Alicia’s memo was to encourage the
Board to reconsider the request to use the funds that will be donated to the City to set
up a legal contract with a composting contractor to provide this service.
2
July 25, 2007
Seth Sicroff and Megan McCallum, addressed the Board regarding the removal of the
trash receptacles at the off-leash dog park and requested that the City do something to
collect the waste and make it easier for users of the park to follow the established rules.
Traffic Related Items:
Kent Johnson, Engineering Aide, and Ithaca Police Officer Scott Peters participated in
the review and discussion of the following traffic related items:
Mini – Circle at Plain and Center Streets
Existing conditions: A mini traffic circle was installed in the intersection of South Plain
Street and Center Street in 2002 in response to the decision to rebuild the Plain Street
bridge over Six Mile Creek to accommodate automobiles. Though originally controlled
by yield signs, the intersection is currently controlled by stop signs on Center Street.
Pavement markings are limited to faded crosswalks (horizontal bar design). Motor
vehicle accident reports indicate that no crashes occurred at this intersection in years
2002-2004 or in 2006. One crash occurred in 2005 in which a motorist struck one of the
raised splitter islands that have since been removed. Though the intersection seems to
be functioning fairly well, engineering staff has identified a few modifications that could
be made to clarify and improve operations, respond to resident complaints, and to
enhance pedestrian safety.
Recommendations: Standard necessary maintenance and a few low-cost measures
will likely improve the function of this intersection. Additionally, as this mini traffic circle
is a unique experiment in the City, it should be installed and maintained properly to
maximize its traffic calming utility and acceptance by the community.
Maintenance:
Replace missing “KEEP RIGHT” signage (question mark like signs) in center of
circle.
Re-stripe faded crosswalks (use ladder bar design instead of horizontal bar
design).
New measures:
Replace Center Street stop signs with yield signs and install yield signs for South
Plain Street (making all approaches yield upon entering the intersection).
Add yield line pavement markings adjacent to all yield signs to reinforce the fact
that drivers shall yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks.
Paint yellow, hatched splitter islands to show that vehicles should stay right of the
center island.
On-street parking should be relocated closer to the intersection (~20ft back from
crosswalks).
Temporary, advance-warning signage may be warranted to warn motorists of the
changed conditions.
Many of these recommendations are based on standards and guidance from the federal
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the federal Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (FHWA-SA-04-003). There is precious
little guidance from the New York State manual however New York State will be
adopting the federal manual in September of this year.
Commissioner Schlather arrived at the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the pros and cons of installing four way yield
signs, the compliance requirements for traffic circles in New York State, and the police
department’s experiences with this intersection in its current configuration. The Board
agreed that they would support the Engineering staff’s recommendation and would
consider a resolution at their August 8, 2007 voting meeting.
3
July 25, 2007
Turn signs at Stone Quarry Road
Existing conditions: Stone Quarry Road and Spencer Road are controlled by stop
signs in each direction and intersect at an acute angle. Consequently, motorist turning
right from Spencer Road onto Stone Quarry Road must violate the lane of oncoming
traffic to negotiate this maneuver. To eliminate this potentially hazardous condition, the
Schedule of Traffic Regulations indicates that such right turns are prohibited.
However in May of 2000, the Board of Public Works passed a resolution titled:
“Removal of No Right Hand Turn on Stone Quarry and Spencer Road.” It seems that
this action stemmed from resident complaints about the inconvenience in accessing
area destinations, especially in combination with the traffic diverter at Spencer Road
and S. Meadow Street. The Schedule of Traffic Regulations was not updated to reflect
this change.
Other considerations:
1. Though the right turn from Spencer to Stone Quarry Rd. may seem intuitively
hazardous, there is not a high accident record for this location. While there were
six crashes in the vicinity of this intersection during the time period from 2005 to
2006, only one collision took place at the intersection. In this case, the vehicles
were both turning onto Stone Quarry Rd. from opposite directions from Spencer
Rd. at the same time and one failed to yield the right of way properly. From 2000
to 2004 there were two crashes at the intersection, but we do not know what type
they were.
2. The three intersections that include (1) Stone Quarry & Spencer, (2) Spencer &
S. Meadow, and (3) S. Meadow & Elmira form a corridor used by motorists to
travel between South Hill and the commercial development along Rt. 13.
Changes to any one of these intersections will alter the traffic flows at the other
intersections. Such broader consequences should be considered when choosing
among the recommendations listed below. Also, depending on the scope of the
changes, it may be appropriate to involve area residents in the decision-making
process.
Recommendations: One of three options should be pursued:
1. In accordance with the Schedule, re-install the NO RIGHT TURN sign to discourage
motorists from turning right and causing hazardous conditions. (If this option is
chosen then supplementary signage – EXCEPT MOTORCYCLES AND BICYCLES – should
be considered.)
2. Amend the Schedule of Traffic Regulations to remove the No Right Turn from
Spencer Rd. to Stone Quarry Rd.
3. Make some improvements (such as relocation of stop sign(s) and stop bar(s), and
installation of pavement markings) to the intersection in question so that right turning
motorists from Spencer Road do not cause as much of a problem for vehicles coming
down Stone Quarry Rd. (If this option is chosen then the Schedule of Traffic
Regulations should be updated so that right hand turns are no longer prohibited from
Spencer Road to Stone Quarry Road.) Also, even if right turns are permitted for
passenger vehicles and improvements are made to this intersection, signage should
probably be installed that indicates that trucks may not turn right from Spencer Road.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the history of the various
configurations at this intersection as well as the police department’s experience with
accidents and traffic enforcement. Officer Peters explained that he had seen many
configurations of this intersection during his years with the department and that the
current configuration seems to work the best for motorists. Motorists are cautious,
courteous, and take turns driving up and down the road to allow for drivers to turn right
have the room they need to make the turn; even though it means that they make take
up part of the left lane which is illegal. Asst. Superintendent for Streets & Facilities
4
July 25, 2007
reported that his department received many complaints from neighbors in the area
when the “No Right Turn” signs were installed as drivers would just use their driveways
to turn around to access Stone Quarry Road.
The Board agreed that they would support recommendation option #3 and requested
that Engineering staff prepare a resolution for their consideration that includes option #3
for their August 8, 2007 meeting.
Board members thanked Engineering Aide Johnson for his fine work in providing the
background information and the proposed recommendations for their consideration.
Mayor Peterson stated that in some areas mirrors are used to help traffic navigate
through intersections and suggested that the City might want to investigate this use of
mirrors for difficult intersections.
Common Council Liaison Coles stated that she and the Mayor had discussed the area
near this intersection including the triangle at Spencer Road and South Meadow Street.
She stated that area needs to be improved aesthetically and the rocks that are in place
in the triangle should be removed as they are very unsightly. In addition, she stated that
she would like to see signage erected in the area similar to the South Hill area that
“Welcomes People to the Spencer Road Neighborhood”.
2005 Collison Report
The 2005 report is based on motor vehicle accident reports submitted to the Office of
the City Engineer by the Ithaca Police Department and the Cornell University Police.
Starting with 2005 data, the City started recording much more information about
reported crashes than in years past. It can therefore tell more about reported collisions
than in years past and this data can be used to set new baseline conditions upon which
to compare future data or to compare against statewide or national statistics.
A strong caveat should be stated that the information the City tracks is only what is
reported, that there is a certain amount of interpretation involved in reading an accident
report and recording its data, and that staff still has to go back to the actual collision
reports to analyze a specific location because they can’t record all the information in the
reports. Nonetheless, this data will be useful in finding the locations that warrant closer
attention. It should also be noted that multiple years of data and further analyses are
required to reveal trends and atypical occurrences. Nationally, it is estimated that
somewhere between a quarter to half of all incidents are not reported to the police
however, the vast majority of unreported incidents do not result in property damage or
injuries and therefore may be considered to be insignificant from a highway safety
design perspective.
Here is an overview of collisions in the city in 2005:
1,402 motor vehicle collisions were reported within the Ithaca city limits.
95% of the reports were issued from the Ithaca Police Department and 5% were
issued from the Cornell University Police.
Injuries were reported in 14% of collisions
No deaths were caused by vehicular collisions within the City of Ithaca in 2005
25% of collisions were with parked vehicles
17 collisions involved bicyclists
20 collisions involved pedestrians
Just under a quarter of collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists happened on or
near Cornell University’s campus
Around 10% of vehicle collisions occurred along the Rte 13 segment from
Wegmans to Home Depot.
5
July 25, 2007
One of the uses of tracking and analyzing collision data is to determine if safety
improvements are warranted in specific locations and, based on the types of collisions,
to suggest possible countermeasures for improved safety, such as improved signage or
pavement markings, signal timing adjustments, traffic calming measures, and other
infrastructure modifications. In addition to physical improvements, improved
enforcement and education strategies should be implemented as well. Most likely, a
multi-pronged, inter-departmental and inter-agency approach will be most effective in
our multi-modal environment.
Currently, the City of Ithaca does not really have an organized traffic safety program but
it is very interested to see what kind of program might be created. There are a number
of different directions that such a program could take. For example, it could focus on
pedestrian and bicycle safety or it could focus on road safety audits for high accident
locations or it could take its lead from a funding source and pursue a Safe Routes to
School grant from the Federal Highway Administration on a Safety Management
System which indicates that such a program could, and probably should, be broader
than just the Office of the City Engineer. There is certainly a role for that office to play,
but it should be in the context of a much broader coalition of partners, including law
enforcement, emergency services, the school district, public information officers, the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, adjacent municipalities and others. The City Traffic
Engineer will be talking to a number of people about what a traffic safety program might
look like and is interested in the Board’s thoughts on the matter as well. Of course, one
of our biggest considerations would be funding levels and that may well dictate what
kind of program can be assembled. For example, it may be that the program would be
reliant on grants, or would only be an enhancement to existing projects. The City’s
annual budget process in large part determines levels of service and priorities among
programs.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the information that the collision report
provided and suggested that it might be good to have the statistics for accidents that
occur on private property versus public property and the need to work to implement
some of the recommendations from the Pedestrian Advisory Committee’s final report.
Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Schedules I, II, and III (from 2-14-07 agenda)
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 administer the Vehicle and
Traffic Law, and
WHEREAS, the Schedules are in need of a complete review and update, and
WHEREAS, the Office of the City Engineer is carrying out this review and update, and
has recommended an initial set of updates, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is in agreement with these amendments to the
Schedules, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the following Schedules: Schedule I, Traffic Control Signals;
Schedule II, Speed Limits; and Schedule III, School Speed Limits be amended in
accordance with the attached schedule update, dated January 25, 2007.
Mayor Peterson stated that she thought the Board already voted on this resolution at
their February meeting and asked the City Clerk’s office to review past meeting notes to
confirm and report back to the Board.
[Note: The Clerk’s office conducted the above research and found that this resolution
had been discussed and approved by the Board at the February 21, 2007 meeting]
6
July 25, 2007
Dog Park Update
City Attorney Hoffman submitted the following proposed resolution for the Board’s
consideration that reflects the Board’s discussion at the July 18, 2007 meeting:
Proposed - Resolution Authorizing Placement of Dog-Waste Receptacle(s) at the
Temporary Off-Leash Dog Area, by a Private Contractor, and Suspension of the
“Carry-in, Carry-out” Policy Established on June 23, 2007
WHEREAS, Common Council has temporarily exempted from the “leash law” a portion
of the City-owned “Festival Lands, until December 1, 2007, and
WHEREAS, the resulting increase in use of the so-called Off-Leash Dog Area (OLDA)
has also increased the amount of dog waste that is generated at the site, and
WHEREAS, the Allan H. Treman State Marine Park, which previously handled the
disposal of waste generated at the Festival Lands, is no longer willing to accept that
responsibility, and
WHEREAS, the cost of contracting with a private company to provide disposal
receptacles and to remove the waste as needed (to be disposed of through composting,
if feasible) is estimated to be approximately $3,000.00 per year, and
WHEREAS, providing for the disposal of such waste involves a cost that was not
budgeted for by the City, as well as other, unanticipated issues, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works, on June 27, 2007, decided to institute a “carry-
in, carry-out” policy at the OLDA, thus requiring dog-owners to remove and dispose of
any solid waste produced by their dogs, and
WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Dog Owners Group (TCDOG) subsequently
contacted the City to express its concern about this policy, and offered to pay for the
cost of disposal of the waste by a private contractor, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby declares its willingness to permit
appropriate receptacles for dog waste to be placed and maintained at one or more City-
approved locations on the Festival Lands, by a private contractor, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The provision of such disposal services shall be pursuant to a written contract
between TCDOG and a private contractor qualified to provide such services;
2. The cost of these contractual services and any associated costs shall be
solely the responsibility of TCDOG;
3. The contract shall provide that the services shall be provided at least through
December 1, 2007;
4. The contract shall provide that any dog waste receptacles maintained on the
site shall be emptied or replaced by the contractor as needed, and shall be
otherwise maintained in good working order, so as to prevent any overflow of
waste or hazard to public health, safety or comfort;
5. Any such contractor shall execute a document, acceptable to the City
Attorney, intended to release and hold harmless the City from any liability or
claims arising out of the placement or maintenance of the waste receptacles
upon City property; and
6. The City shall retain the right to revoke its permission for such receptacles to
be located on City property, effective immediately, should the Superintendent
determine that the receptacles are not being properly or timely emptied,
replaced or maintained;
and be it further
7
July 25, 2007
RESOLVED, That upon receipt of a copy of a signed contract that satisfies the
conditions set forth above, and proof that the release described above has been duly
executed by the contractor, the Superintendent is authorized to grant written permission
for the location and maintenance of one or more receptacles for dog waste at the
temporary Off-Leash Dog Area on the City-owned Festival lands, subject to the
revocation provision set forth above, and be it further
RESOLVED, That, upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth above (as documented
in a written notice to that effect from the Superintendent to the Mayor), the “carry-in,
carry-out” policy established by the Board on June 23, 2007, for the Off-Leash Dog
Area, with regard to dog waste, shall be suspended, and such suspension shall remain
in effect until the Board takes further action or until the Superintendent determines that
the disposal arrangement described herein is no longer hereby in compliance with the
conditions set forth herein and that permission has therefore been revoked, whichever
first occurs.
City Attorney Hoffman reported that the Planning and Development department had
made arrangements with a contractor to conduct data gathering at the off-leash dog
park as required by Common Council at their July 5, 2007 meeting to see if dogs are
staying in the designated off-leash area of the park. He further stated that he was not at
the June meeting of the Board where it was decided to go with the carry in/carry out
policy at the park, but was aware of TCDog’s offer to pay for the contractor to compost
the waste. The Board did not act on this item at their July 11, 2007 meeting, but gave
itself Power to Act at a future meeting so that is why the proposed resolution was
prepared and distributed for this meeting. He stated that his advice to the Board would
be that the City not set up a contract for the work, but establish a contract that would
allow the work to occur on City property. His proposed resolution outlines that
suggestion. He further stated that a written, signed contract should be in place before
any waste receptacles are placed back in the park.
Commissioner Schlather questioned the fact that both City and State lands are affected
by this proposed resolution and questioned whether the City would need permission
from the State Parks to implement any contract. He further asked if that area could hold
a truck that would be used to pick up the waste for composting.
Asst. Superintendent of Streets and Facilities Ferrel reported that there is a drainage
swale in the area and at times the area is wet which might not accommodate a truck.
Commissioner Schlather stated that it occurred to him that the current practice of the
City with regard to use of City property follows that people pay a fee to the City to use
various amenities such as the golf course, lights for the baseball fields, pavilions,
skating at the rink, and so forth, and that to be consistent with that practice perhaps the
City could charge dog owners for the use of the off-leash dog park to cover the
additional costs for waste removal. He stated that it seems unreasonable for the City to
require a private group to contract privately with a contractor to provide a service
located on City property.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the practice of either charging a group or
individuals for the use of City property as the cost to the City for the use of the property
should be recouped by the user fee.
City Attorney Hoffman reported that if the City were to contract with a contractor to
provide composting services it would place logistical burdens on City staff and costs
that are not included in departmental budgets at this time.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the offer by TCDog to pay for the costs of a
composting program.
8
July 25, 2007
Commissioner Chapman stated that City Attorney Hoffman’s proposal makes the most
sense for the City although TCDog indicates that it will not work for them, but did not
offer valid reasons why. The other issue is that this is a trial use only of the use of
Festival Lands for an off-leash dog park and since there are only a few months
remaining in the year the City could undertake Commissioner Schlather’s suggestion.
The other option would be to establish a contract with the composting contractor that
meets all the City’s requirements and fund and sign the contract.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding who would write the contract and the
additional work load for staff should a contract be established.
The Board requested that a resolution be written reflecting the sense of the Board by
the City Attorney for consideration and vote at their August 1, 2007 meeting.
Policy for Notification of Defects
City Charter §C-107 on City Liability
§ C-107. Liability for damage or injury occurring on City property. [Amended 2-1-
1989 by L.L. No. 2-1989]
The City of Ithaca shall not be liable for damage or injury sustained by any person in
consequence of any street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk, crosswalk, park,
playground, stream, pond, lake, reservoir, building or other City-owned property or
structure being out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed by snow, ice or otherwise
or in any way or manner, including but not limited to protruding pipes, metal plates or
covers or other objects, unless written notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous,
obstructed or concealed conditions of said street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk,
crosswalk, park, playground, stream, pond, lake, reservoir, building or other City-owned
property or structure shall have been given to the Board of Public Works of the City of
Ithaca by delivery to the office of the City Clerk or to the office of the Superintendent of
Public Works at least 24 hours previous to said damage or injury. This section applies to
claims of infants and all other persons. Any and all actions maintained for damages or
injuries to person or property caused or sustained as aforesaid shall be commenced in
accordance with the requirements of §§ 50-e and 50-i of the New York State General
Municipal Law.
City Attorney’s proposed protocol (draft)– memo dated October 25, 2006
==========
PROPOSED
==========
City Of Ithaca
Protocol for Handling Notices of Defect and Notices of Claim
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Protocol is (a) to create and maintain a system of
consistent treatment of all notices received by the City of potentially unsafe or injurious
conditions that are within the City’s jurisdiction and ability to correct, and (b) to ensure
that such conditions are addressed in a timely manner by the appropriate
department(s).
PROCEDURE: All notices received by the City of potentially unsafe or injurious
conditions, whether in written or other form, and whether characterized as Notices of
Defect or Notices of Claim or otherwise, shall be handled as follows:
1. All written Notices of Defect (ND) and Notices of Claim (NC), whether or not
formally entitled or characterized as such and including those communicated via
electronic mail, shall be delivered as soon as is practical, to the City Clerk. All
orally received NDs shall be communicated by telephone to the City Clerk, as
soon as is practical.
2. Upon receipt of any ND or NC, the Clerk shall log it (i.e., make some record of
the date, nature of complaint, whether oral or written, etc, in a spreadsheet,
journal, or other type of master cumulative list) and store the original, written ND
or NC in an appropriately entitled file.
9
July 25, 2007
3. Upon receipt of any written ND or NC, the Clerk shall provide a copy of the same
to the appropriate department head (for corrective action, if appropriate), and to
the City Attorney (and, in the case of an NC, to the City’s insurance carrier), and
shall make a note in the afore-mentioned log of such action. Upon notification of
an orally received ND, the Clerk shall notify the appropriate department head,
also noting such notification in the aforementioned log.
4. The department head shall determine if the ND or NC requires City action, and
shall take any such action as quickly as is practical. If the department head
believes the ND or NC should be handled by another department or entity, or that
further action is not appropriate or is precluded by circumstances beyond his/her
control, s/he shall so inform the Mayor, together with the Clerk, by email or
memo, a copy of which the Clerk shall file. If appropriate, the Clerk shall then
notify any other department so named, per Step 3, above.
5. Within two weeks after originally forwarding the ND or NC, the Clerk shall send a
follow-up message (by email or memo) to the afore-mentioned department head,
to ascertain the status of the condition complained of in the ND or NC. The
message should request a response within five business days and should
specifically ask if the condition:
a. Does not require further City action, and, if that is the case, why not
(e.g., if the complaint pertains only to a one-time event, such as a
collision with a City vehicle, rather than to an ongoing condition);
b. Appropriate action has already been taken (and, if so, what that action
was and when it was taken);
c. Appropriate action is pending (and, if so, what that action will be and
the anticipated date of completion); or
d. Other.
A copy of this message shall be printed and attached to the filed ND or NC, and
the log shall reflect that this message has been sent.
6. Within seven business days of sending the message described in Paragraph 5,
above, the Clerk shall forward to the Mayor (with a copy to the City Attorney) a
summary report on the ND or NC and any response to it, including:
a. Date of ND or NC;
b. Particulars of the alleged defect;
c. Department to which ND or NC was forwarded, and date of forwarding;
and
d. Summary of any response report from involved department.
The Clerk shall attach a copy of this summary report to the filed ND, and shall
note in the log that this report has been sent to the Mayor.
City Attorney Hoffman reported to the Board that the Mayor wanted a more formal way
to track notices of defect to create the best possible response time and to make sure
that notification was not lost or response delayed. The City Attorney’s office worked
with the City Clerk to develop the proposed protocol to provide clear documentation for
notices of defect to the City. The documentation is intended to produce a better record,
provide the Mayor information as to the status of notices and assure action by city staff.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding City Charter requirements concerning notice
of claims and receiving oral and written notices of defects. Further discussion followed
on the floor regarding the legal requirements concerning receiving notices of defects.
Mayor Peterson explained that this had been presented to the Board for their review
and comments and thanked them for their time and stated that this proposed protocol
would also be going to Sr. Staff for their review and comments and that it may be
brought back to the Board in the future for further consideration.
10
July 25, 2007
Department of Transportation (DOT) and City Discussions: To swap State-owned
portions of Route 79 for City-owned portions of Route 13
Mayor Peterson and Supt. Gray updated the Board on preliminary talks that have taken
place regarding the exchange of control for these State Routes that run through the
City. Discussions have been taking place for the past ten to fifteen years regarding this
and a meeting between the State and the City has been scheduled for July 26, 2007.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding recommendations from the Board for the City
to pursue in their talks with New York State including traffic signals, traffic lights, storm
drains, bike lane markings, and driveways.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor