HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2009-03-04BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. March 4, 2009
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Brock, 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
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Acting Planning & Development Director – Cornish
Asst. Civil Engineer – Yost
EXCUSED:
Common Council Liaison – Zumoff
DAC Liaison – Roberts
2008 Sidewalk Assessment Public Hearing
Resolution to Open Public Hearing:
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing on 2008 Sidewalk Assessments be declared
open.
Carried Unanimously
The following people addressed the Board regarding their sidewalk assessment:
Ann Erlich, regarding 122-124 Linn Street sidewalks
Dominic Versage, regarding Brandon Place sidewalks
Marty McElwee, regarding 340-344 Elmira Road sidewalks
Pat Carlson, regarding 407 North Aurora Street sidewalks
Donald Spector, regarding 118 Linn Street sidewalks
Frank Mazurek, regarding Campbell Avenue sidewalks – there is a sidewalk on one
side of the street there and he is concerned about equity in costs of property owners for
maintenance of sidewalks that are used more by the public than the homeowners,
where one side of the street has the cost and the other doesn’t.
Bryn Lovejoy-Grinnell, regarding 120 Linn Street sidewalks, insurance requirements,
and costs for homeowners
Barbara Smith, regarding constructing sidewalks wider to accommodate multiple uses,
and property owners being allowed to burnish sidewalks where repairs are needed
Eric Rosario, Alderperson for the 2nd Ward, on behalf on Bryn Lovejoy-Grinnell
regarding the cost of insurance property owners are required to provide in order to
make their own repairs to sidewalks
Many of the comments made by the above property owners focused on the 25%
administrative costs they are charged when the city repairs their sidewalks, the lack of
information provided to them when notified that repairs are required, the appeal
process, and costs of required insurance coverage.
Asst. Civil Engineer Yost explained that a “Task Force/Sub-Committee” consisting of
Commissioners Wykstra and Brock had been created to look at sidewalk appeals on a
case by case basis in order to do more fact finding regarding each appeal, to meet with
individual property owners, if needed, and to make recommendations to the Board.
2
March 4, 2009
Commissioner Brock suggested that if property owners have additional information
about their appeal that they should submit it to them. She stated that each appeal would
be reviewed in depth and responded to.
Mayor Peterson thanked the speakers for their comments.
Resolution to Close Public Hearing:
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing on 2008 Sidewalk Assessments be declared
closed.
Carried Unanimously
Assistant Civil Engineer Yost explained that the next steps in the appeal process
include the following:
1. The Task Force has been created and property owners can make arrangements to
address the members individually if they feel it is necessary.
2. Recommendations from the Task Force would be presented to the Board at a
Committee of the Whole meeting where questions can be asked and the property owner
would be notified of the meeting and could attend if they wish.
3. Proposed resolutions for action by the Board will be prepared for consideration at a
voting meeting.
Assistant Civil Engineer Yost reported that there is a list of 629 sidewalks scattered
throughout the City in need of repair that need to be prioritized for inclusion in their 2009
work plan. She then explained the process the sidewalk crew follows for marking
sidewalks for repair and how property owners are notified repairs are required.
Mayor Peterson requested that staff provide the Board with a “sample” packet that gets
mailed to property owners regarding the need to repair their sidewalks. She felt that
considering some of the comments that were made the Board should review the
packets before they are mailed out for 2009 sidewalk work.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would be in favor of the City taking over the cost
and responsibility for sidewalk repair and maintenance. He encouraged the “Task
Force” to defer to the homeowner as much as possible when reviewing appeals,
especially where city trees are the cause for damage to the sidewalk. He also urged
staff to provide as much information to property owners as is available regarding
requirements for sidewalk repair, the appeal process, and what contractors are
available to do the work.
Commissioner Tripp stated that she agrees with Commissioner Schlather regarding
process and suggested that another sub-committee be set up to look into prioritizing
sidewalk work or the installation of sidewalks where there are none currently. She
further stated that she would be happy to be part of this sub-committee as well.
Superintendent Gray arrived at 5:35 p.m.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he agrees with Commissioner Tripp, although he is
not sure another sub-committee would be needed. He further stated that he and
Commissioner Brock plan to look at this process in a broader sense considering the
comments that have been made and the appeals that have been received.
Commissioner Brock stated that as she and Commissioner Wykstra go through the
appeals they plan to look at the process. She agreed that a new task force might be
needed to revisit city policy on the sidewalk program and whether the city could take
over the responsibility for sidewalks. She noted that Ithaca is promoted as a pedestrian
and bicycle friendly community and the Board and City need to look at how that can be
supported. She further noted that the responsibility for repair and maintenance of city
sidewalks is a huge burden on property owners.
3
March 4, 2009
Mayor Peterson suggested NYCOM as a resource when researching this topic to see
how other communities handle repair and maintenance of sidewalks, especially those
communities that have switched over from it being the property owners’ responsibility to
the municipality’s responsibility. She requested the City Clerk’s office conduct this
research and provide information to the Board accordingly.
Water Source DEIS Comments – Discussion
Acting Planning and Development Director Cornish and O’Brien & Gere Consultants
Rick Gell and Steve Eckler joined the Board for the review and discussion of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) relating to the City’s water supply decision. The
Board was provided with a bound document of the FEIS comments which was reviewed
and referred to during the discussion.
Superintendent Gray explained that Mr. Gell and Mr. Eckler would be attending all three
of the March meetings to discuss this document with the Board. He stated that today’s
discussion should focus on the first third of the comments pages 1-22 covering items 1
through 2.2.3.
Mr. Eckler stated that the first section of the document is the introduction to the FEIS.
The FEIS consists of oral and written comments and responses to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). He explained that the document is in order by
date and index number, substantive comments have been highlighted, and there is a
matrix at the back of the document to allow the reader to go back and forth to locate
names of people who made comments. He explained that they followed State
Environmental Quality Guidelines to differentiate between substantive and non-
substantive comments. He stated that the Board needs to determine whether responses
are adequate so that it can issue a notice of completion for the FEIS.
Superintendent Gray also explained to the Board that this is an initial attempt by O’Brien
& Gere to respond to the comments that were received. This is an opportunity for the
Board to review those responses and let O’Brien & Gere know any areas that weren’t
adequately covered or if they feel the document is not as complete as they would like it.
Mayor Peterson left the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Commissioner Tripp asked if there were any comments that the consultants felt they
could not answer adequately.
Mr. Eckler stated that he and Mr. Gell met with Acting Director of Planning and
Development Cornish and Superintendent Gray to see if there were additional studies
or work needed to comply with the scoping document and they did not identify any. He
noted that makes their job easier and eliminates any discretion that might be needed.
He further noted that they did not have to produce any new information to answer
questions or comments. He stated that ultimately this Board will need to approve the
findings statement to make sure it adequately addresses mitigation plans. This process
is very important as any conclusions are based on this record.
Commissioner Schlather stated that his sense is that the consultants have done a good
job in responding to comments and he is generally satisfied with the document.
There was discussion on how the Board should proceed in its review of the document.
Mr. Eckler stated that some issues have more comments than others so that might help
the Board to focus perhaps on those items.
City Attorney Hoffman asked where mitigation measures are addressed.
Mr. Eckler responded that there were no new mitigation areas and that they referred
people back to the DEIS where that was addressed.
4
March 4, 2009
Discussion followed on the floor regarding environmental impacts of the color of the roof
on the largest building in the natural area and how that would be addressed in the
design phase of the project. The color of the roof could have a negative impact if natural
colors are not used.
Mr. Eckler stated that they followed procedural requirements for SEQR and CEQR to
summarize impacts and how they would be mitigated and that they would be
documented in the findings statement.
Commissioner Schlather stated that responses should include what color is used for the
roof of the building in the natural area to address mitigation measures in order to limit
impacts.
City Attorney Hoffman agreed with Commissioner Schlather and stated that if the Board
also agrees that is an important mitigation measure then the response should reflect
that.
Mr. Eckler stated that they would make a response in the record to reflect mitigation
would include earth tones to match the natural setting for the roof color.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding how the Board should prepare for next
week’s meeting and Mr. Eckler distributed additional information for their review and
discussion next week.
Superintendent Gray noted that there would only be a few voting items on the agenda
next week, and that most of the meeting would be devoted to this topic.
Commissioner Schlather asked what the next steps would be after the Board finishes its
review of this document.
Mr. Eckler responded that they would draft responses that the Board has asked to be
added to the document, a notice of completion would be done and then a findings
statement would be issued. He noted that all involved agencies would need to issue
findings statements or adopt the Board’s statements.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor