Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2009-11-18BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. November 18, 2009 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Brock, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Acting Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Zumoff Information Management Specialist - Myers Alderperson Myrick Alderperson Schuler Alderperson Tomlan Assistant Civil Engineer – Yost EXCUSED: Deputy City Controller - Andrew DAC Liaison – Roberts PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the February 4, 2009 Board of Public Works Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes - Resolution By Commissioner Wykstra: Seconded by Commissioner Brock RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the February 4, 2009 Board of Public Works Committee of the whole meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously Approval of the August 12, 2009 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes - Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the August 12, 2009 Board of Public Works meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously Motion to Table with Power to Act at the December 2, 2009 Committee of the Whole Meeting on the Approval of the October 7, 2009 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes - Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the Approval of the October 7, 2009 Board of Public Works Committee of the Whole meeting be tabled with Power to Act at the December 2, 2009 Committee of the Whole meeting. Carried Unanimously Approval of the October 14, 2009 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes - Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the October 14, 2009 Board of Public Works meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously Approval of the October 21, 2009 Board of Public Works Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes - Resolution By Commissioner Wykstra: Seconded by Commissioner Schlather RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the October 21, 2009 Board of Public Works Committee of the Whole meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 2 ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Supt. Gray requested the addition of the following items: Item 10.1 – Power To Act – Approval of Columbia Street Pedestrian Bridge Approach Plaza – Resolution at the December 2, 2009 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Item 7.1 Approval of Encroachment Agreement/License for 423 E. Lincoln Street Resolution for today’s meeting. No Board Member objected. MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Peterson reported on a New York State Conference of Mayor’s sub-committee meeting that she attended in Auburn today regarding truck regulations. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Collegetown Waste Reduction Proposal: Sarita Upadhyay, Chelsea Clarke, and Alderperson Myrick addressed the Board to present their proposal regarding waste reduction in Collegetown. They distributed their proposal to Board members and the Mayor as follows to highlight areas of concern: “Beginning in the Fall of 2008 the Cornell Greek Community began a weekly program known as Collegetown Cleanup. As a part of this program 20-30 members of the Cornell Greek Community would meet every Sunday to clean up the streets Collegetown. Through this process it became apparent that the area had a serious waste problem and this problem stemmed primarily from a lack of public trash and recycling receptacles. The 3 trash cans that do exist are dilapidated and often overflowing. Collegetown contains the highest population density in the city of Ithaca and includes a number of restaurants, bars, and other businesses that make the area a lively and heavily trafficked area at all times of the week. Given this information as well as the understanding that the area contributes a large amount in city tax dollars that it seems it would be reasonable to request more attention be paid to the regular upkeep of Collegetown. Goals: Foster a sense of community (community building), Environmental education, Increased exposure to recycling, Prevention of street litter, Overall beautification of Collegetown Desired Specifications in Trash Cans: • Small enough holes for trash containers to prevent household trash from being deposited • Receptacles are clearly labeled with trash and recycling to make the recycling process easier • Openings on recycling receptacles are fitted to prevent trash from being deposited (i.e. circular holes). • Design allows for artwork to be incorporated They also presented a map of proposed possible locations for additional trash receptacles in the Collegetown area. Public Art: • Public art will be incorporated into the trash and recycling receptacle design in a further attempt to beautify the streets of Collegetown • Art will focus on a message of environmental preservation and community building • Local students (Elementary, Middle School, High School and University) will be solicited to participate in an art contest where the winner’s art will be displayed on the new trash/recycling receptacles in Collegetown. Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 3 Educational Component: • Posters in Collegetown Restaurants • Distribute posters/flyers to homes and at campus events Funding to purchase the receptacles and produce the artwork will come from: • Cornell Public Service Center Grants • Cornell Fraternities and Sororities • Student Agencies • Collegetown Businesses and Landlords In order for the project to be successful we will need some assistance from the city of Ithaca in regards to: • Installation of the receptacles • Regular emptying of receptacles • Possibly increasing the number of pickups or picking up receptacles outside of regularly scheduled pickups on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. • Work with landlords to educate tenants” Alderpersons Tomlan and Schuler addressed the Board to express their support for this proposal and suggestions for funding, changing the pick up schedule in Collegetown to help support this effort, and how that change would affect city wide pick up of trash and recycling. They encouraged the Board to support this proposal by finding ways to fund it and implementing a possible “pilot” program to see how the changes would work. Commissioner Schlather asked what the timeline is for the proposal and what the group is looking for from the City to implement the plan. Ms. Upadhyay stated that they would like approval from the Board of Public Works for the proposal and that they are looking at sometime next semester to start the program. She further stated that they are also applying for grant funding through Cornell University to help fund the purchase of the receptacles. The Board thanked Ms. Upadhyay, Ms. Clarke, and Alderperson Myrick for their work on this project and expressed their preliminary support for the suggested plan. Commissioner Wykstra requested that this item be placed on a future Committee of the Whole meeting agenda. COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD: Alderperson Schuler addressed the Board regarding abandoned shopping carts throughout the City. The abandoned carts affect merchants, residents, Ithaca Housing Authority, TCAT, and Streets and Facilities staff. There is a large “graveyard” of abandoned carts located at Streets and Facilities on Pier Road. She stated that she has been in touch with Reamers, a local recycling agency, who would pay the City for the old carts, once owners signed off on them as far as wanting them returned. She encouraged the Board to consider ways to address this problem because of the possible revenue that might be provided to the City. Frost Travis, representing the Downtown Ithaca Alliance board, addressed the Board regarding the elimination of the one-hour free parking in City garages and the impact it would have on businesses downtown. He stated that due to recent construction projects in the downtown area and the current economy that merchants are struggling. He stated that eliminating the free parking will only make things more difficult for them to continue to operate. Beverly Baker, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding the late notification to her of today’s meeting regarding her appeal to the City concerning a sidewalk assessment that had been made for her property at 309 N. Aurora Street. She stated that she only received notice of the meeting today and that fortunately she was able to attend the meeting, but usually her schedule would not have allowed her to without more notice. Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 4 She further stated that she was very surprised to see that copies of her cancelled check and bank statement with her account numbers still on them had been copied and distributed with agenda packets. She said those contain her personal information and she was worried about that information being made public and the consequences that might result from the distribution of her personal financial information. RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC Commissioner Schlather responded to comments made about abandoned shopping carts. He explained that he had been on a sub-committee in the past with Carol Reeves and others to discuss this same topic. He stated that they had never put into action any of the ideas discussed. Commissioner Schlather volunteered (after the first of the year as his gift to the Board/City since he is not seeking reappointment to the Board and his term ends December 31st) to sit on any sub-committee that might be formed to work on this issue - possibly with Alderperson Schuler. He further responded to comments made regarding the elimination of the one hour free parking. He also responded to comments made from Ms. Baker about her personal financial information being made public, and stated that it was an unintended mistake and he apologized, and stated he would shred and expunge that information from his records. The rest of the Board members and the Mayor did the same. Commissioner Jenkins reported that leaves are being raked and piled close to and into the streets into very high piles which obscure visibility. She wondered if a public announcement of some sort could be made, possibly on News 10 Now, about when leaves will be picked up and how they should be prepared and left for pick up. She said that the leaves are flowing onto the street and are hampering parking which becomes very difficult now that odd/even parking is in effect. Acting Asst. Supt. Benjamin responded that crews would begin pickup and removal of leaves on Sunday, November 22nd. He explained all the work and time that is involved in that project. Commissioner Brock responded to comments about the leaves being piled near or onto City streets and expressed concern that this would become a bigger problem because residents will not want to pay for tags for the removal of bagged leaves. Mayor Peterson stated that if the leaves are not bagged and tagged properly that residents would be ticketed and fined. CC Liaison Zumoff noted that that requirement is not definite at this point as the Board of Public Works has to discuss it still. Commissioner Brock noted that she had seen advertisements in place on the Clock Towers on The Commons and wondered if they are already there why the City can’t proceed with the Trust Company’s offer to donate funds for the repair of the towers and place their advertisement on them as well. City Attorney Hoffman reported that an application has been submitted for an appeal from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow the Trust Company to legally advertise on the clock towers. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals will meet on December 1st and then the Board would be able to take appropriate action afterwards. BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT: Request for Encroachment Agreement/License at 423 E. Lincoln Street - Resolution By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra WHEREAS, Robert D. Terry, the owner of the property at 423 E. Lincoln Street (Tax Map Parcel No. 12-8-1), in the City of Ithaca, has requested an encroachment agreement/ license for a replacement porch and stairs (on the east side of the house, at the second-story level) that would extend approximately six feet into the City right-of- way for Lake Street, with a total length of approximately 24 to 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed porch would replace an existing porch that serves the second story of the house (and includes stairs below it, to the ground level), and which was damaged last month as a result of a truck accident at the site; the replacement porch and stairs would be constructed in essentially the same location, but would have a larger north-south footprint); and Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 5 WHEREAS, there is also a paved walkway along the entire east side of the house, which passes beneath the porch and which is wholly or primarily within the City right-of- way; and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works originally approved the issuance of a revocable permit for the porch and walkway encroachment to a former owner, Carol Sisler, in 1976, and to the subsequent owner, Richard Lazarus, in 1985; and WHEREAS, the permit issued to Mr. Lazarus does not specify that it runs with the property, and is based on the porch as depicted on a survey map (“Resurvey for Richard T. and Nancy Lazarus…Tax Parcel 12-8-1…”) prepared by Manzari & Reagan, and dated May, 1997; and WHEREAS, Mr. Terry reports that the Building Department will not issue a building permit for the replacement porch without a new encroachment license from the City; and WHEREAS, Mr. Terry proposes to extend the replacement porch by between four and five feet on both the north and south ends (but not to extend it any further east than the existing porch), and to construct a roof over the current porch footprint (to protect the stairs from snow and rain); and WHEREAS, the existing porch and walkway are at least six feet from (i.e., west of) the sidewalk on the west side of Lake Street, as would be the proposed, replacement porch; and WHEREAS, the Superintendent has reviewed the request and does not anticipate any conflicts due to the existing or proposed encroachment at this location, in the foreseeable future; 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 existing walkway and the proposed replacement porch on the east side of the house at 423 E. Lincoln Street, revocable upon six months’ written notice by the City in the event that the encroached upon land is required for a City purpose, and containing the usual terms and conditions; and be it further RESOLVED, That the encroachment agreement/license shall not be subject to a fee at this time, per the City’s current practice with regard to such agreements for existing, minor encroachments associated with residential properties, but that the agreement shall specify that at any time in the future it may become subject to new license and/or use fees expected to be established in the near future by this Board, in order to comply with new City requirements enacted in May 2009. City Attorney Hoffman explained that he was contacted by Robert Terry, who has owned the old "Cornell Pottery" building at the southwest corner of E. Lincoln and Lake Streets, since about 1997. He stated that a couple of weeks ago a tractor trailer tried to go up Lake Street, had trouble, and then tried to back down. The driver lost control and the truck heavily damaged a City guardrail and the deck on the east side of Mr. Terry's house at 423 E. Lincoln Street. City Attorney Hoffman reported that the house is rental property, and Mr. Terry wants to repair the porch as soon as he can, and definitely before winter. Mr. Terry has everything lined up but has run into an obstacle. He can't get a building permit without an encroachment agreement from the City, as the porch encroaches by about 6 feet into the Lake Street right-of-way, according to a 1997 survey. (The survey does not depict a sidewalk on this side of Lake Street; it is unclear if one exists there now. In any case, if not, it appears that there would be room to construct one between the porch and the curb.) City Attorney Hoffman further stated that Mr. Terry also showed him a "revocable permit and agreement" that the City issued to the previous owner, Richard Lazarus, in 1986, at the time that Mr. Lazarus was purchasing the property from Carol Sisler (who apparently had an encroachment permit dating back to 1976). The Lazurus permit was not written so as to run with the land, nor does it contain all of the provisions we are Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 6 currently incorporating in such licenses (such as requiring insurance coverage). Mr. Terry says the encroachment agreement was not brought to his attention when he bought the property in 1997. City Attorney Hoffman further reported that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the proposed project as well and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Terry for the project on November 16, 2009. Mr. Terry joined the Board for the discussion of this item. Discussion followed on the floor with the Board asking Mr. Terry and City Attorney Hoffman various questions regarding the project. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding insurance requirements and future license fees for use of City land that the property encroaches upon. A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows: Carried Unanimously HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS: Approval of Uncontested 2005 Sidewalk Assessments – Resolution By Commissioner Brock: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra WHEREAS, during or prior to 2005, the City of Ithaca notified certain property owners adjacent to deteriorated or damaged public sidewalks that said sidewalks had to be repaired by the adjacent property owner, or the City would make the repairs and charge the owner; and WHEREAS, certain of those property owners did not undertake the required work, and the City subsequently performed the work on those sidewalks in 2005; and WHEREAS, after receiving assessments for said work performed by the City, 21 of the affected property owners (from the 2005 work) did not protest their assessments to the Board of Public Works during the appeal period which ended at the public hearing held on March 14, 2007; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works has reviewed the final assessments and approves the following assessment amounts including the 25% penalty required by City Code: Address Property Owner Tax Map # Charges 307Albany N Dong Shee Chong 60.-3-11 $564.18 114 Auburn David Moreland & Kelly Moreland 34.-2-4 $883.68 118 Auburn Adam G Perl & Helen Perl 34.-2-3 $1,109.46 302 Aurora N First Unitarian Society 61.-3-12 $2,448.60 321 Aurora N Theron L Johnson 62.-1-1 $1,228.57 322 Aurora N Larry B Wallace 61.-3-4 $799.31 825 Aurora N Scott Smith & Lisa Smith 28.-5-21 $1,932.08 604 Buffalo E William Macbain & Lisa Macbain 63.-8-23 $2,445.59 609 Cayuga N Harold Herman & Paula J Herman 34.-7-18 $1,890.82 1002 Cayuga N Michael D Cooper & Helena Cooper 14.-5-11 $3,174.86 402 Chestnut Richard W & Dorothy Anderson 74.-2-6 $7,104.03 401 Columbia Carla E Hegeman 82.-7-2 $1,728.21 324 Geneva N Kinga M Gergely 60.-3-4 $725.11 325 Geneva S Mary K McCullough & Mary Pat Brady 80.-11-4 $246.34 507 Green W Unity House & Cayuga County 71.-7-16 $983.18 213 Second Micaela D Salort & Juliette Ramirez 45.-2-18 $927.50 310-318 Third Ithaca Housing Authority 44.-3-2.2 $3,817.25 308 Tioga N Ithaca Professional Building EW King 61.-2-6 $5,692.07 218-220 University Peter Newell & Cherie Newell 47.-4-4 $4,000.12 205 Utica Meghan Anne Van Leeuwen & Kraig Leonard Haverstick 34.-6-15 $1,851.39 502 Utica Stuart E Bergman 27.-2-10 $522.33 Total: $44,074.68 Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 7 And be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works requests that Common Council accept the recommendation of the Board of Public Works and approve the finalization of sidewalk repair assessment for the properties in question, in the amounts shown, and authorize the City Chamberlain to collect such assessments. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the timing of these assessments since the work was done in 2005, assessed in 2007, and now it is 2009 and what property owners will think if they just receive these bills “out of the blue”. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding when, if any, notification has been made to the affected property owners of the process involved in sidewalk repair, and the billing for same. There was concern about the timing of the notices being sent for work that was done four years ago. Commissioner Brock explained that the process for sidewalk repair notices, assessments, and billing has been completely revamped to improve the efficiency with which property owners are notified and billed for work, as well as appropriate notification being made to the City Chamberlain’s office so that information is on file there when properties are sold and tax searches are being done to avoid new property owners being billed for work that they were not aware had been done or that they would be responsible for. She stated that the sidewalk resolutions that are being considered by the Board today are still from the former process that was in place at that time. A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows: Carried Unanimously Approval of Contested 2005 Sidewalk Assessments, Group 2 of 2 - Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp WHEREAS, during or prior to 2005, the City of Ithaca notified certain property owners adjacent to deteriorated or damaged public sidewalks that said sidewalks had to be repaired by the adjacent property owner, or the City would make the repairs and charge the owner; and WHEREAS, certain of those property owners did not undertake the required work, and the City subsequently performed the work on those sidewalks, in 2005; and WHEREAS, after receiving assessments for said work performed by the City, this property owner (from the 2005 work) protested her assessment to the Board of Public Works; and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works heard the owner’s appeal of the contested assessments prior to or during the public hearing held on March 14, 2007 and on April 22, 2009 at which time she indicated that she had paid the City’s contractor directly and would provide proof of payment and what the payment was for; and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has reviewed the protest/appeal and the documentation submitted to date related to it, and has made the following determination, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works approves the finalization of the assessment to reflect the City’s cost plus the mandated 25% overhead, and requests that Common Council direct the City Chamberlain to collect the assessment as listed below: Address Property Owner Tax Map # Current ChargeAlternate Levies 309 Aurora N. Beverly Baker 62.-1-14 $2,354.90 $954.90 $0.00 Commissioner Schlather explained his amendment to the last resolved clause and noted that he would also include some language about fairness. He stated that the fairness, frankly, no longer has anything to do with whether the money is owed or not. It has to do with what he considers to be a mistake, an honest mistake. The publication of personal financial information in this fashion should not have happened and it only Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 8 happened because the Board and staff were so adamant that the property owner keep proving that payment had been made to the contractor. He noted that when the check was provided that should have been enough. He stated that when the proof was finally provided, and he applauds staff for being diligent in this regard, it should never have been spread in the public record. The right of privacy trumps all of that and he thinks as a token of apology on the Board’s part what appears to be about a $954 item be forgiven on our part for her forgiveness. Supt. Gray noted that while he feels thoroughly chastised, he thinks everything having to do with the financial information was accurate. He explained why staff pursued this item in this way, and why he feels differently about this. He explained that the City can not go back to the contractor because the City does not have a contract with the person she wrote the check to. That person was a sub-contractor to the person that the City had a contract with. The other thing is, that in order to do work in the street right-of-way and as seen in the notices sent to her that she or her contractor would need to obtain a permit, had there been a permit for the work that she paid for, the City would have known that she was undertaking that work, and that the City didn’t have to do it. City staff would have at least asked why the City was being billed for it. The fact that we paid for that work, and that she subsequently paid for it, really falls to her because the obligation was for her or her contractor to obtain a permit, and put the City on notice. Ms. Baker should not have been spending money in the street right-of-way without getting the City’s permission. The City had no way of knowing that the work was being undertaken. However, to counter balance that, the fact that we’re discussing this five years later is not very good. The unfortunate thing is that there was no permit issued for the work, and if she paid for and we paid for it, we paid for it because we contracted for it and we directed the work to be done. There is still outstanding work outside of the driveway that she thinks she paid for, and there was additional sidewalk work and that’s the $900.00 shown on the assessment for the property. Commissioner Brock explained the reason the sub-committee requested all the detailed, personal information was because this was such a challenging process to try to discern what was going on because she owns two different properties and separating out what work was done on either one. She supports the alternate fee $954.00 that is show in the assessment. She explained that the City committed to this work, it contracted for the work, and made arrangements with contractors to do this work. The City knows that Ms. Baker tried to circumvent the process, but we do have a procedure in place for this type of work. She is the first to say that she would like to simply revamp this procedure and change it, but dealing with what we have and wanting to be consistent for all the people from the page before who are receiving assessments and those after if we choose to be consistent and apply a 25% fee to those home owners who do not maintain their sidewalks, she thinks it shows a certain disregard to just throw it out, just because someone takes that step to write a letter. She thinks that if the Board believes in this fee then it should support it as part of the process or it should get rid of it for everyone, but she would hope that the Board could at some point choose to be consistent in this process. Commissioner Schlather apologized if he offended any of his colleagues or Supt. Gray. His concern was not to be critical of them directly or personally, but rather to try to emphasize the importance of what he considers to be a bigger principle which is the right of privacy and how important that is in terms of how information once into the public well tends to be distributed throughout the community, and that is what he was concerned about. Secondly, he thinks there is a distinction between doing what we’re proposing to do here for this property owner versus the others. On the face of it, none of the others protested it, this property owner did and not only has she done it but she has persisted over the past four years albeit intermittently, but nevertheless she has hung in there. His third point and he thinks the phrase the Board should use and what he would probably do is modify the resolution so that it would read very simply: Amending Resolution: By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the last Resolved clause be amended to read as follows: “RESOLVED, That in the interests of justice, the Board of Public Works waives any further assessment of this property for the costs at issue, including any overhead charge.” Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 9 He explained that would accomplish what he would like to do which is in essence say to Ms. Baker, whatever the underlying dispute, we have made a mistake here and we are willing to acknowledge that in a tangible way because we believe that the bigger issue needs to be acknowledged and that’s the acknowledgement on our part. It’s in the interests of justice and simply says that we believe this is a fair way of putting this to bed. Secondly, by putting a period after “including any overhead charge” and not making any reference to trying to re-collect from the contractor, he acknowledges what Supt. Gray said. That is that it is impossible and frankly it would just add more work to staff to go in that direction, he thinks that tonight is the time to end this. A Vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (4) Schlather, Tripp, Jenkins, Wykstra Nays (1) Brock Abstentions (0) Carried Main Motion As Amended: A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (4) Schlather, Tripp, Jenkins, Wykstra Nays (1) Brock Abstentions (0) Carried Mayor Peterson left the meeting at 6:10 p.m. and did not vote on this issue. Approval of Uncontested 2006 Elmira Road Sidewalk Assessments - Resolution By Commissioner Brock: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra WHEREAS, during or prior to 2006, the City of Ithaca notified certain property owners adjacent to deteriorated or damaged public sidewalks that said sidewalks had to be repaired by the adjacent property owner, or the City would make the repairs and charge the owner; and WHEREAS, the City performed the work on those sidewalks in 2006; and WHEREAS, after receiving assessments for said work performed by the City, the affected property owner (from the 2006 Elmira Road work) did not protest the assessments to the Board of Public Works during the appeal period which ended at the public hearing held on June 6, 2007; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works has reviewed the final assessment and approves the following assessment amount: Address Property Owner Tax Map # Charges 321 Elmira Rd City of Ithaca (Water & Sewer Division) 122.-2-1 $13,390.00 And be further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works requests that Common Council accept this recommendation of the Board of Public Works and approve the finalization of sidewalk repair assessments for the property in question, in the amounts shown, and authorize the City Chamberlain to collect such assessments. Carried Unanimously Certification of Assessment Roll and Public Hearing Date Set for 2006, 2007, 2007 Elmira Road Sidewalk By Commissioner Brock: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra WHEREAS, City of Ithaca completed sidewalk work as part of the 2006 Sidewalk Program, the 2007 Sidewalk Program and 2007 work on the Elmira Road Sidewalk, and WHEREAS, City Code requires a public hearing prior to the assessment of charges, and Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 10 WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works, City Attorney, Superintendent of Public Works and other staff wish to allow property owners an adequate opportunity to share opinions on the sidewalk repairs performed by the City, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works Certifies the following Assessment Roll including the 25% penalty required by City Code: Address Property Owner Tax Map # Charges 2006 Sidewalk 105 Lewis St Stephanie Hsu 27.-5-2 $250.00 2007 Sidewalks 402-404 Esty St. David W. Mitchell 51.-1-12 $7,844.65 216 Washington St Francine M. Wilson-Jasper 51.-6-9.2 $5,355.52 2007 Elmira Road Sidewalks 347 Elmira Rd. Katzkidd Investments 125.-2-1 $10,558.30 341-343 Elmira Rd Americo Real Estate Co 125.-2-2 $27,406.26 and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works sets a Public Hearing on December 9, 2009, to allow property owners to protest the proposed billing amounts for the work performed in 2006 and 2007, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs staff to notify the affected owners of the proposed charges, public hearing date and protest options. City Attorney Hoffman noted that Ms. Baker did not receive notification of today’s meeting in a timely manner and asked whether these property owners have been notified appropriately about the proposed assessments. Supt. Gray responded that these property owners have not been notified because when the Board calls for the public hearing staff will notify them at least ten days before the hearing. These property owners will receive notification between now and the 30th of November. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the process that has been followed with the properties noted above for sidewalk work and the notification process in place. It was noted again that this past practice has been changed and will not occur in future sidewalk work and assessment procedures. There was concern raised by the Board of them certifying the assessments prior to the public hearing being held. Amending Resolution: By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the first Resolved Clause be modified to read as follows: ”RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works proposes the following assessment roll including the 25% penalty required by City Code.” Carried Unanimously Commissioner Schlather requested a resolution be placed on the agenda for the December 9, 2009 Board of Public Works Meeting, after the public hearing, that would certify the assessment roll. The rest of the Board concurred. Amending Resolution: By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the last Resolved clause be amended to read as follows: “RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs staff to notify the affected owners of the proposed charges, public hearing date, and protest options by mailing the same no later than Tuesday, November 24, 2009.” Carried Unanimously Board of Public Works – November 18, 2009- Page 11 Main Motion As Amended: A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended Resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously CREEKS, BRIDGES, AND PARKS: Power to Act – Approval of the Columbia Street Pedestrian Bridge Approach Plaza By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the Board grants itself Power to Act on the approval of the Columbia Street Pedestrian Bridge Approach Plaza at the December 2, 2009, Committee of the Whole meeting. Carried Unanimously WATER AND SEWER: Leaking Water Service, 235 Hector Street – Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has reviewed the written protests of Steven Williams, 235 Hector Street, concerning the replacement of his water lateral in Hector Street and its associated cost, and WHEREAS, in the course of the discussion, Mr. Williams indicated that while he was not happy, he had paid the City’s bill following discussion with staff about the policy that resulted in the bill and about a number of questions about the bill itself, and WHEREAS, Mr. Williams, in closing, stated that he would settle for having improvements to the pavement in front of his house because the roughness of the pavement and the high traffic load causes substantial noise and vibrations in his house and neighborhood, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works declares the issue closed with Mr. Williams’ payment of the bill and directs staff to contact Mr. Williams to review pavement improvements that will accompany a sewer upgrade planned for Hector Street in 2010. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor