Tuesday’s Board of Estimate and Taxation meeting returned attention to the Dept of Public Works project to upgrade 8 intersections on Greenwich Avenue to include ADA improvements.
It started with First Selectman Fred Camillo issuing a reminder about the town’s moral obligation to be ADA compliant.
It went on to include two motions that were ultimately withdrawn – one to fund an engineering study and one to refer the project to the Historic District Commission.
The highlight was a vote along party lines in which BET chairman Harry Fisher used his tie-breaking vote to side with Republicans on the desire to postpone.
The issue has simmered since the June BET public hearing on the DPW project, when speakers criticized the plan for its inclusion of curb extensions, aka “bump outs,” and complained about the Elm Street intersection where there are bump outs and a raised hump. (DPW has said future intersections will not be raised.)
And while that June hearing was held as a condition of the release of $450,000 in funds for the DPW project, on Tuesday, the Republican BET members said they were not convinced the town was even out of compliance on ADA.
Deputy DPW commissioner Jim Michel and commissioner Amy Siebert. July 16, 2024
Elliot Alchek asked DPW commissioner Amy Siebert if it was accurate to say she wanted to bring Greenwich Avenue into ADA compliance.
“What we’ve been trying to do, if we look at the projects for some time, is to bring the Avenue as a whole into good condition,” Siebert said. “Folks are seeing some sidewalk work. We’re trying to improve sidewalks, tree wells, the pavement, you know, give it a lift.”
Mr. Alchek refined his question. “Before we repave the Avenue, the ADA compliance work needs to be completed, is that right?”
“That’s always been our understanding from our training on the rules through DOT, Highway Association, UConn – right or wrong, some people have noted that perhaps we’ve been trained incompletely,” Siebert said. “Our understanding is you bring things into compliance. It makes sense if we’re replacing sidewalk and pavement, that the time to do it is before – so that you’re not going in later to tear up good pavement.”
Mr. Alcheck asked if there was “immediacy” to the project.
“That’s what we’ve understood,” Siebert said.
Karen Fassuliotis said she and fellow BET member Leslie Tarkington had met on Friday with commissioner Siebert, deputy commissioner Jim Michel, and engineer Michael Kiselak, and specifically asked whether the existing curb cuts were compliant with the 1991 law or the 2010 law.
“The answer was quite frankly surprising,” Ms Fassuliotis said. “The answer was, ‘We don’t know. It was before our time here. We don’t have the documentation.'”
Fassuliotis said she learned from a constituent that the ADA law has a “Safe Harbor” clause which essentially says if you are in compliance with the 1991 ADA or 2010 ADA standards for curb cuts, you don’t need to upgrade them when you repave.”
“In fact the State Dept of Transportation actually utilized the Safe Harbor clause because when they repaved East and West Putnam ave, they didn’t touch the ADA curbing along that stretch,” Fassuliotis said. “As of today we don’t know definitively whether the Safe Harbor provision applies to the Greenwich Ave repaving project.”
As for Mr. Camillo’s comment that the town had a legal and moral obligation, she said, “DPW has an obligation to know and present to us what is required by the law when these projects come before us so that we can make informed decisions. That hasn’t happened here.”
She said Democrats on the BET would spin the situation as one n which Republicans were against against disabled people or being obstructionist, but that was not the case.
“We should be looking at what is required, whether or not we need to spend more money – these will be millions of dollars and will set a precedent for the town. And we should know what we are funding.”
She suggested putting a pause on the project until there were more answers.
“We all should understand this application before spending millions of taxpayer dollars that may or may – and I repeat may not, because we all frankly don’t have a clue based on what was presented, may not need to be spent, since we may already be in compliance.”
Stephen Selbst said he was very disappointed that the meeting was the first time he’d heard about the Safe Harbor provision and that it hadn’t come up at the previous day’s law committee meeting.
“What I hear is there is a suggestion from a constituent that there may be a Safe Harbor. That, at best is anecdotal, and at worst is hearsay,” Selbst said.
“This is no way to run a consultative body,” Selbst added. “It is grievously disappointing to me.”
He said every time the town delayed funding of ADA projects it sent a message that it was not a priority.
“The goal is compliance, whatever that compliance is,” Fassuliotis said. “We have an obligation to see how our monies are being spent.”
Stephen Selbst, Nisha Arora and Matt DesChamps at the July 16, 2024 BET meeting.
Nisha Arora said she would like to see some alternative plans, especially at the top of the Avenue.
“And some alternative ideas about where the bump outs are being proposed,” she added.
Ms Arora said her closest friend relied on a scooter or cane depending on distance to walk, but that she also drove and avoided the Elm Street intersection.
“She thought the visibility when incredibly reduced because of all the plantings, it wasn’t a straight shot,” Arora said.
Arora said there were other challenges to ADA access the town should address, including chairs from outdoor dining blocking the sidewalks.
“I heard Mr. Selbst say this plan is what is required – I don’t know if this is the perfect solution. I talked to you Jim, (Michel) and asked you are there alternative solutions.”
Arora also said the town should incorporate the feedback from the public at the June hearing.
Scott Kalb said it was “outrageous” to be called to a meeting and have to deliberate on something he had not had opportunity to study.
Second he said “personal preferences” had biased BET decision making.
Also, he said Ms Arora had only spoken to one constituent.
“The majority of people I’ve spoken with who are disabled or senior or elderly who have problems on the Avenue have been waiting for us for a long time to take action.”
Kalb said by postponing would open the town to both financial and legal risks, and that BET would lose credibility.
Ms Moriarty said the situation was a “total failure of this board.”
“We are showing that we are a dysfunctional body,” she said, adding that the new information should have been disclosed earlier.
“There may be a legal standard where Greenwich can escape doing the right thing, but is it the Greenwich we want?” she asked.
David Weisbrod, Leslie Moriarty, Leslie Tarkington, Harry Fisher and Karen Fassuliotis in the BET meeting on July 16, 2024
“This should be the easiest decision in the world,” she said, adding, “We talk about bump outs, but that’s only one facet of this plan. We have issues with the location of the handicap spaces and the way they’re accessed.”
Lucia Jansen talked about DPW providing more detail on what the 8 intersections would look like, noting when they were presented at the June public hearing there was “tremendous pushback.”
Matt DesChamps also said he believed the conditions for the funding had been met, that he had heard nothing the Safe Harbor provision until the last minute, and that the First Selectman’s Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities had been consulted on the project.
“It is not the function, the mission, to inject personal preferences into every single project,” he added. “It’s our job to fund projects that come before us, that seek the proper funding, that have gone through the proper government channels, which this has done.”
“What we’re trying to do is pave Greenwich Avenue and bring it up to compliance. That question has been asked and answered, asked and answered, I don’t know how many times.”
As for the public hearing, Ms Arora said its purpose was to hear from the public and many members of the public expressed concerns with the plan.
“To say, ‘We had the public hearing, and the condition has been met,’ is really just a technical excuse to say we’re not going to take action on the concerns we heard at the public hearing,” she said. “Maybe another public hearing is needed. Maybe an alternative proposal is required.”
David Weisbrod said the BET had approved the funding with conditions, the RTM had voted to appropriate the funds, and that the BET budget committee had approved the notion that the conditions had been met, with no dissent.
“We need to do the right thing,” Weisbrod added. “We don’t want to drag our town through the embarrassment of seeing this in the papers across the country that we are opposed to the requirements set forth by the ADA.”
He urged the board to stay within its purview.
Leslie Moriarty, Leslie Tarkington and Harry Fisher at the July 16, 2024 BET meeting.
Leslie Tarkington said the conversation on accessibility should acknowledge that people 65+ will have fewer parking spaces available to them.
Further, she said during the meeting with Ms Siebert and Mr. Michel, questions about whether the ADA requirements had already been met were “not succinctly answered.”
“The town is implementing a multi-million dollar improvement plan on Greenwich Avenue and I asked at this meeting (with DPW) what is the cost. It’s currently fully appropriated between $3 million and $3.5 million, but we were told the DPW is using highway maintenance funds that were excess from other accounts for the project to date.”
She said on BET Decision Day 1, a condition for MI approval was included as a subject to release, but later they were told they that was not allowed.
“If the MI had remained in place, this board wouldn’t be involved in some of these decisions,” she added, “These decisions would have public scrutiny, public questions, perhaps by the boards and commissions who should be considering them.”
BET chair Harry Fisher asked Ms Siebert if DPW had been “re-evaluating” turning radius at the top of Greenwich Ave.
“I think we have them laid out to take a look at what the draft design we have there is,” she said.
“I had no idea I should have joined a debate club as a young person – to lighten the mood here,” she joked. “We can understand a lot of these questions. We’re happy to have input. The team has looked at various designs for a long time.”
The motion from Karen Fassuliotis was to postpone the release on conditions for the ADA funds for Greenwich Avenue until the town legal department review any town documentation and relevant statutes, and provide an opinion as to whether Safe Harbor provisions of the ADA regulations applied to the current ADA curbs, or whether the curb ramps must be in compliance with the requirements of standards existing in 2010 or later.
The vote was along party lines. Republicans all voted to postpone. Democrats voted against postponing.
Chair Harry Fisher offered the tie-breaking vote, which meant the motion carried.
Given the next BET meeting is not until September, Mr. Fisher said he’d be open to scheduling a special meeting.
Lucia Jansen offered a motion to fund an engineering study for a possible alternative implementation, particularly for the top of Greenwich Avenue, but withdrew it, but withdrew the motion after others said that didn’t follow procedure.
Noting that all of Greenwich Avenue was a national historic district, Ms Tarkington made a motion that the project go before the Historic District Commission for review. Mr. Michel said, “In prior conversations on other aspects of Greenwich Ave, sidewalk and curb modifications do not require Historic District Consultation.”
HDC is advisory to the P&Z commission.
Ms Tarkington withdrew her motion, but said, “It’s always added value to have the P&Z commission and its related parties involved.”
“I think a lot of issues have surfaced about how the town in total does conduct business before us,” Mr. Fisher said at the end of the meeting. “I am also disappointed that we didn’t know more of the questions and concerns during our budget deliberations. I think that’s the key lesson learned here. Hopefully we will do better going forward.”
See also:
Feedback on DPW Plans for 8 Greenwich Ave Intersections: Comply with ADA, Skip the Bump Outs June 10, 2024