Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2009-04-29BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 4:45 p.m. April 29, 2009 PRESENT: Alternate Acting Mayor Coles Commissioners (5) - 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 Common Council Liaison – Zumoff Information Management Specialist - Myers Deputy Director of Community and Development – Kittel Assistant Civil Engineer – Yost EXCUSED: Mayor Peterson DAC Liaison – Roberts PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Jenkins led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Superintendent Gray explained to the Board that “proper notification” had not been provided to property owners regarding the following appeals when agenda packets were distributed on April 24, 2009. He further explained that his office made telephone calls to each and everyone of the property owners on April 28, 2009 and was able to speak personally with them about the Board hearing the appeals at today’s meeting, and at that time an apology was made for the lack of proper notice. He stated that some property owners were not happy with such short notice. He noted that some property owners were able to attend the meeting today and that it would be up to the Board whether it wanted to proceed with them or not. After discussion and advice of the City Attorney, the Board agreed to hear the appeals for the property owners who were in attendance at the meeting today only upon their agreement to do so; otherwise the appeals would be postponed until a future meeting. BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT: 114 Spencer Street Encroachment Request – February Draft Resolution By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Brock WHEREAS, the owner of the property at 114 E. Spencer Street (Tax Map Parcel No. 92-2-1), in the City of Ithaca, namely, the Theron L. Johnson Trust, has requested permission to encroach upon the air space above the bed of Six Mile Creek, which creek bed property is immediately adjacent to the afore-mentioned property of the Johnson Trust; and WHEREAS, the afore-mentioned owner seeks to construct a single-level, uncovered, wooden deck (approximately 6 to 8 feet deep, 44 feet wide) on to the rear of the residential structure at 114 E. Spencer Street, which deck, according to a conceptual sketch submitted by the owner, would extend beyond the rear property line by approximately 5 to 7 feet at its southwesterly end, and by a diminishing amount for approximately one-half of its total length; and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has certain property rights in and to Six Mile Creek (between the privately-owned parcels on either side of the creek) at this location, which rights consist at the least of the right of entry, to do work, to remove gravel or other material, and to construct walls and embankments, without interference (pursuant to a grant from Robert H. Treman, et al, dated August 8, 1906, and recorded in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, in Book 166 of Deeds, at Page 163), and which rights may now, through adverse possession or otherwise through the operation of law, amount to fee ownership; and Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 2 WHEREAS, the Superintendent has reviewed the request and does not anticipate any conflicts in the foreseeable future with the City’s need to exercise its rights in and to the creek in this vicinity, for public works purposes, should a revocable license to encroach for the requested purpose be granted; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the Mayor, upon consultation with the City Attorney, to sign an encroachment agreement/license for the proposed deck at 114 East Spencer Street, revocable upon notice to the owner of _________, containing the usual terms and conditions (except as otherwise specified herein), and subject to the issuance of a building permit for the deck by the City of Ithaca Building Department; and be it further RESOLVED, That the encroachment license shall be subject to an application fee of $__________ and an initial, annual use fee of $__________, and that the license/agreement shall specify that during any year in the future it may become subject to a different use fee or other requirements as established by the Board, as the result of the adoption by the City of Ithaca of new legislation regarding encroachments and license agreements, which adoption is anticipated to occur in 2009. Commissioner Schlather stated that this item was discussed at length at a prior meeting and he is not in support of this resolution. He further stated that the proposed “alternate” resolution is a more fair preservation of the City’s rights as it is not necessary for the deck to extend to the creek and he will not support the resolution. City Attorney Hoffman stated that if this resolution were adopted the blanks would need to be filled in. He noted that it is anticipated that Common Council will adopt new legislation next week regarding “Use of City Land” which would reflect a new fee structure. In the meantime, there are no figures available to fill in those blanks. He also stated that he was under the impression that the Board wanted to hear the rationale from the property owner for this request. The Board agreed to hear Mr. Larry Beck, applicant and property manager for the owner of the property. Mr. Beck explained the details of the proposed deck addition and that application to the Board of Zoning Appeals, in addition to the Board of Public Works, to gain approval for the request had also been made. He explained where the deck would be placed, its size, and the materials it would be constructed with in order to make it fireproof, long lasting, and improve the appearance and value of the property. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the recommendations made by the Planning Board, including a requirement of the building permit being approval of the site plan. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding what precedent might be set by this decision, the property owner wanting to improve the appearance of this very visible rental property and how the City should try to encourage this type of work by landlords to improve their properties. Commissioner Schlather requested that a straw poll be taken to see who supports this resolution which resulted as follows: Ayes (2) – Alternate Acting Mayor Coles, Commissioner Brock; Nays (4) – Commissioners Jenkins, Wykstra, Schlather, Tripp; Abstentions (0) On A Motion this resolution was withdrawn and replaced with the following alternate resolution: Carried Unanimously 114 Spencer Street Encroachment Request – Alternate Resolution WHEREAS, the owner of the property at 114 E. Spencer Street (Tax Map Parcel No. 92-2-1), in the City of Ithaca, namely, the Theron L. Johnson Trust, has requested permission to encroach upon the air space above the bed of Six Mile Creek, which creek bed property is immediately adjacent to the afore-mentioned property of the Johnson Trust; and WHEREAS, the afore-mentioned owner seeks to construct a single-level, uncovered, wooden deck (approximately 6 to 8 feet deep, 44 feet wide) on to the rear of the Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 3 residential structure at 114 E. Spencer Street, which deck, according to a conceptual sketch submitted by the owner, would extend beyond the rear property line by approximately 5 to 7 feet at its southwesterly end, and by a diminishing amount for approximately one-half of its total length; and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has certain property rights in and to Six Mile Creek (between the privately-owned parcels on either side of the creek) at this location, which rights consist at the least of the right of entry, to do work, to remove gravel or other material, and to construct walls and embankments, without interference (pursuant to a grant from Robert H. Treman, et al, dated August 8, 1906, and recorded in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, in Book 166 of Deeds, at Page 163), and which rights may now, through adverse possession or otherwise through the operation of law, amount to fee ownership; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed this request for encroachment at the behest of the Board of Public Works and they responded that there may be individual instances where encroachments would be reasonable provided there was a clear public benefit, but that this specific request as presented is not compelling and does not provide a public benefit, now therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works denies the request to enter into an encroachment agreement for a deck on the rear of 114 Spencer Street, while agreeing to allow whatever short term and temporary measures staff, after consultation with the City Attorney, may agree to in order to allow the owners to accomplish needed and desirable building maintenance. Commissioner Schlather explained that the idea with this resolution is that the applicant does not need the Board of Public Works approval to build a deck on his property. The property owner can encroach on city land to build the deck and then exclusively keep the deck on their property. Amending Resolution: By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Schlather RESOLVED, That the Resolved clause be amended to read as follows: “RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works denies the request to enter into an encroachment agreement for a deck on the rear of 114 Spencer Street, while agreeing to allow whatever short term and temporary measures staff, after consultation with the City Attorney, deems appropriate in order to allow the owners to accomplish needed and desirable building maintenance and to construct a deck on the property owner’s own property within two (2) years.” Carried Unanimously Main Motion As Amended: A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended Resulted As Follows: Carried Unanimously Appeal of Recycling Violation for 215 First Street – Resolution By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra WHEREAS, The Board of Public Works has reviewed the appeal of the recycling violation at 215 First Street, and WHEREAS, The Board sees that there is sufficient evidence to expunge the fee assessed for the violation; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends the fee assessed for the recycling violation be expunged. Vice Chair Jenkins asked Ms. Sill, former tenant of 215 First Street and Ms. Dissin, property owner of 215 First Street if they wanted the Board to hear their appeal today even though they had just received notification yesterday. They both agreed and proceeded to address the Board regarding the recycling violation at 215 First Street. They explained the history behind the violation and their reason for the appeal. Discussion followed on the floor regarding what information staff provided to show the violation, the time it had taken the Board to hear the appeal, the confusion there seems Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 4 to be on when notices were delivered, the fine assessed, and how to improve on that process. Commissioner Schlather explained that he would be voting against this as he supports staff and the information they obtained and provided to the Board as back-up for the violation. A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (4) Jenkins, Tripp, Brock, Wykstra, Coles Nays (1) Schlather Abstentions (0) Carried Appeal of Trash Violation for 215 Ridgedale Road – Discussion/Resolution This item was not discussed. HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS: Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 119 Stewart Avenue - Resolution This item was not discussed. Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 232-38 Dryden Road – Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp WHEREAS, James R Rider and Lois E Rider, owners of 232-38 Dryden Road, received a 2005 sidewalk assessment for sidewalk work completed adjacent to their property, and WHEREAS, sidewalk notices were sent in 2000 and 2005 to James R Rider and Lois E Rider, and WHEREAS, James R Rider filed a written appeal to the assessment and James R Rider and Lois E Rider appeared at a public hearing to protest the assessment on the basis that City of Ithaca commenced work prior to providing an advance estimate of the work; costs charged may differ from local contractor charges; the four inch thick sidewalk measurement is actually 700 sf, not 729.6 sf; and a 35 foot long crack has appeared in the new sidewalk and is beginning to heave. WHEREAS, a subcommittee of the Board of Public Works has met with staff, made a site visit and reviewed information provided by James R Rider and Lois E Rider and staff regarding the appeal; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes that the city’s contractor completed the sidewalk replacement work, and feels that the owner is responsible for payment because the City of Ithaca did provide an advance non-binding estimate of quantities and a sketch with each sidewalk notice and no record indicates that the owners asked for further information; the owners had ample time to hire a local contractor if that was their preference; and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board agrees the correct four inch thick sidewalk measurement is 700 sf at $7.42/sf for an assessment subtotal of $5194.00 with an additional 25% overhead fee of $1298.50 to total $6492.50; and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board notes that the sidewalk with the 35 foot long crack is not in condemnable condition, and waives the 25% overhead fee for 175 sf of cracked sidewalk totaling $324.63 and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board hereby revises the sidewalk assessment for 232-38 Dryden Road to total $6167.87 including all 25% overhead fees that are not waived. Vice Chair Jenkins asked the owner of the property, Mr. Rider, and his property manager James Orcutt, Jr. whether they wanted to proceed today with the appeal since they received notice yesterday that the Board would be discussing their appeal and they agreed. Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 5 Mr. Orcutt addressed the Board and explained that he had received notice of the hearing at 4:00 p.m. on April 28, 2009 and that he had questioned why there hadn’t been more notice provided. He further explained the extensive history of this appeal which began in 2000 when the property owner first received the notice that the sidewalk needed repair. In 2005 the sidewalk had not been repaired and the owner authorized the City to perform the work not realizing the cost. He further stated that the City undertook the repairs and assessed the cost to the property. He explained that the owner is appealing the exorbitant cost and the fact that the sidewalk now has a long crack in it that they feel should not be their responsibility to repair. Discussion followed on the floor regarding when notice was given to the property owner of the needed repair work, the process by which the city obtains qualified bids, the fact that the city requires the contractors to whom bids are awarded to pay prevailing wages to their employees and how that increases the cost for the work. The Board explained that they had created a sub-committee to review each sidewalk assessment appeal and that the resolution reflects their findings. Commissioner Wykstra, who was on the sub- committee, explained that the crack in the sidewalk is not the result of the repair work, but the result of the embankment not being made stable and noted there has been an accommodation made in the assessed fee for that. A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 202 East Court Street – Resolution By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra WHEREAS, Finger Lakes Land Trust, owner of 202 East Court Street, received a 2005 sidewalk assessment for sidewalk work completed adjacent to its property, and WHEREAS, sidewalk notices were sent in 2000 to a previous owner and to Finger Lakes Land Trust in 2005, and WHEREAS, Finger Lakes Land Trust filed a written appeal to the assessment on the basis that roots from City trees caused all walk damage, driveways were blocked during the work, and that the City replaced sidewalk that did not need repair because it was convenient to add it to corner ramp work. WHEREAS, a subcommittee of the Board of Public Works has met with staff, made a site visit and reviewed information provided by Finger Lakes Land Trust and staff regarding the appeal; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes that the city’s contractor completed the sidewalk replacement work, and feels that the owner is responsible for payment because photographs by the owner show areas on North Tioga Street previously classified as tree-damaged and areas on East Court Street previously classified as owner responsibility without evidence of roots large enough to shift sidewalk slabs; work cannot be performed without blocking access; and the defects and need for the work were documented in the defect notice, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board hereby denies the request to expunge the sidewalk assessment for 202 East Court Street. Vice Chair Jenkins asked the representative of the property owner, Betsy Darlington, whether she wanted to proceed today with the appeal since they received notice yesterday that the Board would be discussing the appeal and she agreed. Commissioner Brock, who was on the sub-committee that reviewed each sidewalk assessment appeal, explained that the sub-committee double checked the measurement, reviewed the pictures and determined that the root damage was not significant enough to cause the sidewalk to heave. She noted that there was a significant amount of the assessment written off because of root damage and the resolution reflects that amended amount. Extensive discussion followed on the floor with the Board and Ms. Darlington exchanging questions and concerns about the work that was done, what roots might have caused damage, new curb ramps that were installed near this sidewalk area, and Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 6 how sidewalk repair work is prioritized which is not always by the most defective sidewalks. City Attorney Hoffman disclosed that he worked on behalf of the Land Trust in the law office of Commissioner Schlather when this property was sold. Commissioner Schlather stated that in that case he was disqualified from further discussion of this item and that he would recuse himself. A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows: Ayes (5) Jenkins, Tripp, Brock, Wykstra, Coles Nays (0) Abstentions (1) Schlather Carried Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 321 North Albany Street – Resolution This item was not discussed. Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 421 North Cayuga Street – Resolution By Commissioner : Seconded by Commissioner WHEREAS, Jeremy and Christine Potter, owners of 421 North Cayuga Street, received a 2005 sidewalk assessment for sidewalk work completed adjacent to their property, and WHEREAS, sidewalk notices were sent in 2000 and 2005 to a previous owner, Byron Caplan, and WHEREAS, Jeremy and Christine Potter filed a written appeal to the assessment on the basis that they were advised that the property was free and clear of all outstanding debts or claims and that they did not own the property at the time of sidewalk replacement, and appeared before the Board on July 18, 2007 and WHEREAS, a subcommittee of the Board of Public Works has met with staff and reviewed information provided by Jeremy and Christine Potter and staff regarding the appeal; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes that the city’s contractor completed the sidewalk replacement work prior to purchase of the property by Jeremy and Christine Potter on June 26, 2006; that this obligation transfers with the sale of the property; and that Jeremy and Christine Potter obtained a tax search on May 1, 2006 which did not show the pending sidewalk assessment, and be it further OPTION A: RESOLVED, That the Board directs that the City Chamberlain and City Attorney seek payment from the former owner, Byron Caplan, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board hereby grants the request by Jeremy and Christine Potter to expunge their sidewalk assessment for 421 North Cayuga Street. OPTION B: RESOLVED, That because the value of the repaired sidewalk and this obligation transfers with the property, and the pending assessment bill was a public record available at the Office of the City Engineer on June 26, 2006, Jeremy and Christine Potter are responsible and may chose to seek reimbursement from Byron Caplan if they feel he misled them and be further RESOLVED, That the Board hereby denies the request by Jeremy and Christine Potter to expunge their sidewalk assessment for 421 North Cayuga Street. Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 7 Vice Chair Jenkins asked the owners of the property, Jeremy and Christine Potter whether they wanted to proceed today with their appeal since they received notice yesterday that the Board would be discussing their appeal and they agreed. Extensive discussion followed on the floor with the property owners regarding the search done for outstanding bills on the property at the time they purchased the property by both themselves and their attorney. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the lapse in time of when the work was done, when the bill was calculated and certified by the Board of Public Works, and the fact that the outstanding bill had not been transmitted to the Chamberlain’s office in a timely fashion so that it would show up in the tax search done by the buyer’s attorney. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the seller’s responsibility to inform the Potters of this outstanding bill at the time of the sale. Asst. Civil Engineer Yost reported that the Engineering Office has worked with the City Chamberlain’s office to resolve the problem with the timely transmission of bills to their office so this should not occur in the future. Members of the sub-committee requested that this item be tabled pending investigation by the City Attorney’s office as to whether there is a matter of law whereby the seller should have disclosed this outstanding bill to the buyers at the time of the sale and what recourse might be sought by the appellants. Motion to Table: By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra RESOLVED, That the Board table the discussion of this item pending an opinion from the City Attorney on whether there is a matter of law whereby the seller could be held responsible for this charge. Carried Unanimously CREEKS, BRIDGES, AND PARKS: Golf Course Rates - Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the advertised rates for other golf courses in the area, and WHEREAS, Newman Golf Course rates were changed in each of the last four years, and WHEREAS, the 2008 adopted rates for Newman Golf Course are competitive with neighboring golf courses, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works adopts the rates established in 2008 as the current Newman Golf Course rate schedule, as follows, and be it further 2008 Rates Membership Type Cost Individual, Resident $500.00 Individual, Non-Resident 550.00 Sr. Individual, Resident 450.00 Sr. Individual, Non-Resident 500.00 Domestic Couple, Resident 700.00 Domestic Couple, Non-Resident 770.00 Family, Resident 770.00 Family, Non-Resident 840.00 Weekday Only, Resident 325.00 Weekday Only, Non-Resident 360.00 Weekday Domestic Couple, Resident 480.00 Weekday Domestic Couple, Non-Resident 520.00 Senior Domestic Couple, Resident 630.00 Senior Domestic Couple, Non-Resident 770.00 Junior, Resident 200.00 Junior, Non-Resident 220.00 College Membership (Ages 18-22) 275.00 Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 8 (Restricted weekdays before 4 p.m. w/college ID and weekends after 12 noon) City Employee Rates 275.00 Daily Use Fees Weekday 18 holes $17.00 Weekday 9 holes 13.00 Weekend 18 holes 20.00 Weekend 9 holes 15.00 after 2 p.m. Member User Fee N/A League 12.00 daily RESOLVED, That these rates will remain in effect until amended by the Board of Public Works, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works adopts the following rates for cart rental: Non-Members: $15/9 holes $26/18 holes Members $12/9 holes $22/18 holes and be it further RESOLVED, That with respect to Sunday afternoon there be “all you can golf” for City residents from 2 pm until close at a rate of $10.00; not including cart rental. Commissioner Schlather expressed his concern about the budget deficits and noted he would like to see the rates raised for non-city residents. He also suggested that the City offer free golfing for city residents on Sunday afternoons as a way to encourage use of the course. Supt. Gray stated that he would prefer to see the rate reduced by half on Sunday afternoons in order to maintain some regulation of the course. He further stated that the city does need a consultant to see how the course could be made more profitable. Discussion followed on the floor regarding how to promote the course, the yearly operating costs, and the cost if course were maintained as a lawn. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the potential of the course and area as proposed by the Visionary Task Force relating to the continuation of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail through the area. A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (4) Jenkins, Brock, Schlather, Wykstra Nays (0) Abstentions (1) Tripp Carried WATER AND SEWER: Joe Daley, City of Ithaca, discussed with the Board the problems he has been experiencing with obtaining the raw data of all the water meter readings for his twenty properties. He reported that since the new water meters were installed he has seen a 50% increase in his bills. He would like to determine where or what might be causing the problem. Asst. Supt. Whitney responded that he would provide the requested information to Mr. Daley and work with him to resolve the problems he has been describing. The Board requested that staff report back to them on the findings of this request. ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS: Verizon Wireless Monopole – Discussion: This item was not discussed. IURA Upgrade of Conway Park Playground – Discussion: Board of Public Works – April 29, 2009- Page 9 The Board requested that the Parks Commission and residents be consulted about this upgrade and expressed their support for the proposal. IURA’s Cass Park Dock Project: Supt. Gray explained that this project was approved two years ago to meet the needs of the Dragon Boat Festival. Asst. Supt. Ferrel reported that there are some ADA issues that still need to be resolved. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the use of the dock and whether it would be exclusively for the dragon boats and if not that signage should be installed to reflect that. Discussion also followed on the floor regarding how the dock would affect future dredging work. Commissioner Brock expressed concern about the proposed design of the dock which includes banisters that prohibit the dock’s use as a launch site for human powered watercraft. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor