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