Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-11 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, at 4:45 p.m. in Common Council Chambers - Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. Agenda 1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda (Items 1-5: 20 min 2. Mayor's Communications 3. Communications and Hearings from Persons before the Board 4. Response to Public 5. Reports Special Committees of the Board Council Liaison Board Liaisons Superintendent and Staff Other Department Heads 6. Approval of Minutes 7. Administration and Communications (10 min.) 7.1 2010 DPW Accomplishments & 2011 Goals - Report 7.2 Preferred Topics for 2011 8. VOTING ITEMS FT Buildings, Properties. Refuse, and Transit 8.2 Highways. Streets. and Sidewalks (15 min.) 8.2 Widening of Road at the Intersection of Aurora and Prospect Streets - Possible Resolution Please bring backup information from the January 19, 2011 agendal 8.3 Parking and Traffic 8.4 Creeks. Bridges. and Parks 8.5 Water and Sewer 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS 9.1 Buildings, Properties. Refuse. and Transit (20 min.) 9.1 Private Use of Cass Park Docks - Discussion 9.2 Highways, Streets, and Sidewalks (15 min.) 9.2 Protest of Sidewalk Assessment at 104 Worth Street - Discussion 9.3 Parkin and Traffic (10 min.) 9.3 Request for Parking for Persons with Disabilities for 653 Chestnut Street — Discussion 9.4 Creeks. Bridges, and Parks (10 min.) 9.4 Parks Commission Resolutions of Auburn Park and Fire Training Center — Discussion 9.5 Water and Sewer 10. New Business 11. Adjournment If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting. The Board of Public Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the month at 4:45 p.m. Al meetings are voting meetings, which opens with a public comment period. Meeting agendas am created from prior public input, Department operating and planning issues, and requests made to the Superintendent The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request written comments an lengthy or complex issues. This information may than be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or author invited to attend. Page 2 Notes for BPW Agenda, January 26.2011 7.1 2010 DPW Accomplishments & 2011 Goals — Report Attached is a review of the DPW work in 2010, with both specific and general goals for 2011 This is in outline form so it assumes some familiarity with the department's work. The list I provided the Mayor is an edited list of the information presented to me by staff. While I believe it provides a reasonable representation of the work done in 2010, you may be aware of items not listed here. The goals for 2011 are listed with the work area and are fairly specific, or listed at the end and represents general areas of work. I believe that, with the publishing of the governor's budget for the state fiscal year 2011/2012, we will be talking about 2011 and the next several years because of budget impacts. This also seems like a good time to talk about a "ten year plan' because 40% of the Department has worked for the City for 20 or more years, and 50% of the Department is fifty years old or older. There is every reason to believe that there will be major changes in the Department in the next several years as people and technology at work change. 8.2 Widening of Road at the Intersection of Aurora and Prospect Streets — Discussion Please bring backup information from the January 19, 2011 agendal There doesn't seem to be a major movement among staff or the Board towards widening the intersection to put in a turning lane. It compromises pedestrian and bicycle movements at the intersection, as well as someone's property and there are possible low-cost solutions, such as "no left turn" restrictions, which could be tried. The obvious advantage to implementing the turning lane now is that it would become a part of a larger federally aided project, if there were agreement that this was important. Tim told me today he would like to review accident history in the intersection and see if that points in some direction, such as limiting left hand turns during peak hours, a more general problem, or no apparent problem. Twenty years ago, I think this decision would have been made to favor the automobile. It may still, but at least the conversation is more complex. I have not written a resolution. We may have written alternate resolutions by the time of the meeting, but you are welcome to weigh in. 9.1 Private Use of Cass Park Docks — Discussion Attached are several items relating to the use of the new docks at Cass Park. Last year a one-year decision was made concerning the Dragon Boats. We are much better informed now, with a new policy for the use of city property. I have attached some material for your review. The conclusion I came to is that if a decision is made that there is enough dock space to warrant allowing private use of some of it at this location, then it needs to be made publicly available. Boat slips are usually made available at a predetermined price, usually on a lottery or a first come basis. I would also suggest that a boat slip is usually twenty to twenty five feet long. Two sides of a dock with each face over forty feet long would be four dock spaces. We now have a way to value those spaces based on an appraisal of undeveloped land. We also have a survey of developed boat slips which is roughly twice the undeveloped value. Since Page 3 most boat slips go to mechanically powered craft and that is not allowed at this location, it is hard to know the market value of our spaces, but it should be between the two numbers we have. Since these spaces are in a park, our legislation requires Common Council to handle this matter. After our discussion I would make a recommendation to Council by resolution of the Board. 9.2 Protest of Sidewalk Assessment at 104 Worth Street — Discussion Attached is a letter of protest from the property owner. I have requested a package of back- up material for the Board's review. I am preparing these notes ahead and I don't have the material for my review. If the package is not complete, or arrives too late to be useful, we can carry this item over. 9.3 Request for Parking for Persons with Disabilities for 653 Chestnut Street — Discussion I believe this is the first residential request we have received since the new policy was adopted in March 2010. In much the same way that we expect commercial property to show us this need can not be met privately, we expect residential property to demonstrate that as well. There is no obligation for the city to supply on street parking for private residences so this is a decision that the Board should make and articulate carefully. I have requested more material than the simple recommendation I have been given. 9.4 Parks Commission Resolutions of Auburn Park and Fire Training Center — Discussion Attached are two resolutions from the Parks Commission concerning Auburn Park and the Pier Road Fire Training Center for your consideration. W.J. Gray, P.E. Superintendent of Public Works January 21, 2011 Page 4 7.1 2010 DPW Accomplishments & 2011 Goals —Report DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Accomplishments 2011 Goals Report to Mayor, December 2010 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 2010 • Johnson Controls energy improvements selected — Finalized contract for design build • Two operator trainees converted to 3A operators • Connell College Vet Medical Waste Digester draft permit for alkaline digester • Equipment Upgrades/Replacements — 23 year facility 2011 • W WTP energy upgrades start construction 2011 • Connell Vet School permit resolved ENGMEERING 2010 • Start construction on Columbia Street Pedestrian Bridge • Design of Clinton Street Bridge/Prospect Street Reconstruction • Update TIP for 5 years of bridges/strects/pedestrian projects • Resolution of bridge safety & structural flags • Route 89 Repairs - base repairs & crack sealing • Cayuga Waterfront Trail Phase III completed • Spencer Slope Stabilization finished • Hangar Theatre fuel tank removed • Thurston Ave. pavement and pedestrian enhancements • Seneca Street Garage Inspection of structural elements completed • First part of Winter Village Trail ("Gate Way Extension' or "Creek Walk") completed • GIAC Pool • Cass Park rink floor and refrigeration 2011 • Begin Cayuga Waterfront Trail Phase II • Land acquisition and public information for 2012 construction of Clinton Street Bridge/Prospect Street Reconstruction • Route 89 repaving — 1 mile (Cass Park) • Seneca Street Garage — emergency repays • Stewart Avenue Pavement — Consultant selection & project design Page 5 PARKS 2010 • Tree inventory updated (25%) • 70 trees removed; 160 trees planted • 116 new trees along the new trail (CWT Phase III) • Landscape upgrades at Water & Sewer's Franklin Street Impound • Worked with NYSEG for line safety 2011 • Continue the tree inventory • Tree safety and replacement • City Forester, job description STREETS & FACILITIES 2010 • Inlet Island parking lot — 200 spaces • Franklin Street (Water & Sewer) curb & sidewalk, commercial • GIAC building drop-off curb realignment • Mill & pave/overlay — long list of streets • Energy improvements — solar hot water tanks • Emergency response — generator sets • NYSEG coal tar removal 2011 • 2011 Projects coordination meeting with NYSEG, NYSDOT, Town of Ithaca • Energy improvements/chemical use Equipment upgrades or rehab due to delayed replacement WATER & SEWER 2010 • Sewer to reduce flow at Cascadilla Park Road • Clinton Street/Prospect Street water and sewer replacement, for 2012 rebuild of street • Hardfill site design contract • Hopper Street sewer and watennains • Prepare water tanks for paint and repairs continued • Stormwater and site improvements at First & Franklin Streets • Water Treatment Plant/Watershed improvements • NYSEG coal tar @ W WTP const. Improve 2011 • Complete hardfll site approval with Town • Execute water tank contracts • Develop water district quality water program Page 6 • Water treatment plant/watershed improvements 2011-2013 construction • Finish site improvements at First & Franklin Streets ADMINISTRATION 2010 • Coordinate NYSEG coal tar clean up • Workforce Diversity Program aspiration — implementation • Coordinate Emerson TCE clean up • Budget Capital Costs / Open Costs records • Community public information (working to improve your city) 2011 • Workforce Diversity • WWTP • Town coordination with Water & Sewer projects, Interceptors 2011 OVERALL DPW GOALS • Control costs — Short & Long Term o Utility Coordination/Construction o Chemical Usage, e.g. o Coagulants o Road Salts • Public Information o Water costs, new water treatment plant o Parking availability and costs o Watershed safety • Next 10 year plan, budget outlook o Opportunities o Challenges o Use of Real time information (dredging, staffing changes, water leaks, vehicle locations) • Look for money opportunities o Grants o Highway Funds, TIP o Trails, high labor, low cost • Diversity Inclusion o Hiring outreach • Succession Plan o Training o Information collection W.J. Gray, P.E. Summary of Staff Input December 20I0 Page 7 9.1 Private Use of Case Park Docks — Discussion Board of Public Works Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 Cass Park Docks and Dragon Boats— Discussion John Mayer, Ithaca Dragonboat Club President, addressed the Board regarding the boat docks. He explained that the Dragonboat Club had used the boat dock in Cass Park for many years. He further stated that the club appreciated the offer to utilize the southern -most dock for 20 days, and requested usage of the dock beyond 20 days. Alex Deyhim addressed the Board stated that the quality of life is high in Ithaca, which includes the Dragonboat Club. He stated that he had been a member of club for two years and it is one of the many reasons for remaining in Ithaca. Commissioner Jenkins arrived at 5:19 p.m. Director of Planning and Development Cornish and representatives from the Ithaca Dragonboat Club to joined the Board for the discussion. Mayor Peterson explained that the Superintendent of Public Works is authorized under the new Chapter 170 of the City Code, Use of City Real Property, to award a permit for the use of parkland for up to five days for no more than four times a year, equaling a total of twenty days. She further explained that Common Council would need to authorize a license for the seasonal use of parkland for lengths of time longer than twenty days. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the history of conversations regarding the Dragonboat Club's use of the docks, and the City allowing exclusive use of parkland and the docks, and the Public Trust doctrine. Director of Planning and Development Cornish explained that according to federal grant requirements (which were used to build the docks) for a public facility serving low and moderate income residents, in can be interpreted that at least 51 % of the docks must remain available for public use. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the boat club's boats remaining tied to the docks, rather than removing the large boats from the water after each practice. Mr. Mayer requested that permission be granted to enter the water and dock the boats at the southern dock with the understanding that if there's a delay in the issuance of a license, the boat club may be asked to remove the boats. Page 8 Common Council — May 5, 2010 By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca recently completed construction of two new docks at Cass Park, one purpose of which is to allow members of the public to launch, dock and/or return human -powered craft (such as canoes and kayaks); and WHEREAS, the new docks were fully funded by a federal grant that was administered by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; and WHEREAS, the new docks complement an existing dock at the same location, which is intended for the same purposes and will remain available; and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Asian American Association (IAAA) has requested permission to reserve one of the new docks for the docking of two dragon boats during the 2010 boating season (i.e., from late April until October 30, 2010) and to place a small storage shed for supplies related to Dragon Boats (approximately 10' x 12') on land adjacent to the dock; and WHEREAS, the IAAA sponsors the Dragon Boat Club and has organized the annual Dragon Boat Festival and other activities intended to promote the appreciation and enjoyment of dragon boats and their cultural significance, and to enhance the appeal of Ithaca as a focal point for dragon boat enthusiasts; and WHEREAS, membership in the Dragon Boat Club is open to anyone, without discrimination; and WHEREAS, since the City has not previously had three docks of this type at this location, it is not known what the public demand will be for their use, which information can only be derived with certainty from the actual experience of at least one boating season; and WHEREAS, since the process of placing a typical canoe or kayak in the water, or removing it from the water, takes only a few minutes, and since it is not anticipated that the users of such craft will be docking them at this site for extended periods of time (and, in any case, will be limited to daytime use and docking, unless permission for extended docking is granted by the City), it is anticipated at this time that public demand can be met by allowing unrestricted public use of two of the three docks; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 170 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca ("Use of City Real Property"), such use of City parkland (for an event lasting more than five days at a time or that occurs more than four times over the course of a year) requires the approval of Common Council; and WHEREAS, Chapter 170 anticipates that the exclusive (or semi -exclusive) use of City property (pursuant to a permit, license or lease) will normally be subject to a fee intended to represent the fair rental value of such property; now therefore be it Page 9 RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that the proposed reservation of one of the three docks at the Cass Park site, for the dragon boats of the Ithaca Asian American Association's Dragon Boat Club, during the 2010 boating season, constitutes a recreation - related use of Cass Park, which use is not expected to significantly compromise the public's ability to enjoy the park or the dock facility as intended, and in fact could enhance the overall quality of the park's appeal and benefit to the public, for those who enjoy participating in and/or observing dragon boat use and racing; and be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor - upon consultation with the appropriate Department Heads as to form and compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, and upon receipt of a properly completed application from the ]AAA - to issue a revocable license to the Ithaca Asian American Association, permitting that group to reserve one designated dock at the Cass Park location for in -water storage of two dragon boats and to maintain a small storage shed on land adjacent to the docks, for the remainder of the 2010 boating season (i.e., through October 30, 2010, with the understanding that such license shall not provide exclusive use by IAAA of the surface of the dock in question (i.e., other members of the public may walk on it or fish from it, and use the dock for the mooring of typical canoes and kayaks), except during the launching or return of a dragon boat, and which license shall contain the standard terms and conditions, with regard to liability insurance coverage, indemnification of the City, safety precautions, and other pertinent matters; and be it further RESOLVED, That as the City has not yet established a regular, fair -market fee for such seasonal use of its parkland, Council hereby sets a fee of $1.00 for the IAAA's reserved use of the dock during the 2010 season, which fee shall be paid by the IAAA to the City upon receipt of the license; and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor is hereby requested to ensure that demand for use of the three docks at Cass Park, by users of human -powered craft, is reasonably evaluated during the 2010 boating season, by appropriate City staff, so as to determine whether reserved use of one of the docks substantially interferes with the level of use and availability desired by other members of the public. Carried Unanimously Page 10 Area Boat Dock Rental Fees V t4-a� Touahannock State Park- $625/season $21/day (weekdays) $25/day(weekends) Treman Marina State Park- $620/season Myers Point- $608/season Waiting list, no boats over 18ft Ithaca Yacht Club- 30 ft slip- $1440/season (includes club membership) $20 day for visitor boats Lockview Marina- (Cayuga Lake) $30/foot- seasonal rate $1 /foot- day rate Johnsons Boat Yard- $33-$50/ foot- 6 month seasonal rate Cascadilla Boat House- $1.00 per year for Cascadilla Boat Club use of the Cascadilla Boat House? Note: The amenities vary for each marina but some include access to showers, water/hose connections, electricity, etc. In some cases the price listed is for boats 18 feet and under, with a higher fee for boats over 18 feet. In general marina usage tends to be for power boats or sailboats, not canoes and kayaks. of I T,tQ.W&-1, 11a'� �zo WL�1. cr le)-R e rya s e ¥¥* , w §� \ \j ) r %] / � DOCK LOCATION . . W_ !@ ~/� /�N j° ! � d \, \ ?\ \ MR, ; GAP 25 m a rm r qK2 |k&n,m� 'ƒ)) �Z { \ Mo % # � 7 � \k § § § � A /w 6_r �� a Im 0 e � §p WATERFROW TRAIL « ,! grjw } jra .! \� - - /� \) |� § -- ( - . § §) - § g§ �� (§ ` I ' ZI , _ , § , ® •2 ) / - �§��- § ! <I | \/ ! # � |, } |`_PARK S� 6_r ) ��= \ « v °. �� �� @@ / 91M Municipal Management Series ies REGULATION OF PARKS AND OTHER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY December 2003 NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS • If a party or an event involving alcohol is a priority, the municipality can relieve itself of liability by holdii the event at a restaurant or other facility where the attendees pay their own wag • Dram Shopg and Liquor Legal Liability coverage is available to caterers, restaurants and bars that se� alcohol for profit. If your municipality does choose to host an alcohol related event it should also be in compliance with the New York State Alcohol Beverage Control Law. This act prevents such things as: Service or sale of alcohol to those under the age of 21j9 and • Allowing those under the age of 18 from serving alcohol to others." Fees For Use A municipality may not charge its residents an admission fee as a condition of entrance to,a public park without specific statutory authority," but it may charge non-residents an entrance and use fee:"Hh'wevey residents may be charged for the use of special recreational facilities — such as pools, tennis courts, golf courses — including parking areas," which are available to the public within the park" Villages are specifically authorized to establish recreational facilities and puking areas and td charge fees, tolls, rate or admissions for their use. This is considered a "self-supporting improvement"." Reservations For Use Special recreational facilities may be reserved by segments of the public so long w the public at large has an equal opportunity to use the facilities in question." This would include a pavilion, gazebo, special field, etc. Exclusive Use Exclusive use of any part of the facilities is improper. Recreational facilities are for the general use of the.public, even though, from time to time, portions of the facilisiesare used by particular groups of the public. However, if any portion is granted exclusively for the use of a particular group, and the public use of that portion is obstructed, this would be an improper use of the property. This can be especially troublesome with regard to little league organizations, soccer clubs, and other organized sports. A baseball or soccer field in a public park should serve both the spectator and participation aspects of the sport. Assuming no charge is made for admission to the game, organized sports teams can be given reasonable use t the park The use must be fair and nondiscriminatory in regard to the public at large. Rules and regulations shoult be promulgated which would allow the little league or soccer club and others, to be scheduled to use the park at designated times to avoid conflicts." Permanent use at particular times, even though just once or twice a month, is also improper since the permanency of such use would also destroy the public nature of the facility." Use of Park Property by Private Groups Private groups may be granted licenses to use municipal park facilities provided that such licenses are made available to different groups on an equal basis and do not interfere unreasonably with the use of the facilities by the general public.'" Should there be more applicants than available facilities, the first -come, first -served rule may be applied, although consideration may be given to alternate methods, such as the drawing of lots, allowing alternate use, or other fair and equitable methods.d0 - Excluding Nonresidents Consideration is given to the nature of the particular facility and the language of the enabling legislation under which the facility was established and is maintained. The extent to which the facility was originally acquired or dedicated for general public use is an important consideration, as is the subsequent conduct upon the part of the municipality which evidences an intent to hold the facility in trust for the benefit of the general public. The Equal Protection Clauses" do permit municipalities wide discretion in the reasonable classification of persons who may benefit from public facilities maintained through taxation revenues." Under equal protection principles, classifica- tions are permissible so long as all persons similarly situated are included within the classification and all such persons are similarly treated. Differentiation in classification or treatment will be upheld if it has some rational basis, is not arbi- trary, and bears some substantial and rational relation to the accomplishment of a legitimate governmental purpose." When Authorized - • When property is dedicated as.a city or village park for residents only." • Where municipality accepts the conveyance of real property, the deed to which contains a restriction requiring the exclusion of non-residents." • Villages are specifically authorize4 to establish recreational facilities and parking areas, to charge fees, rolls, rates; or admissions for their use, and to limit the use of such self-supporting improve of the village.-ments to residents f"- When, Unauthorized . }ra When property is dedicated as a "public park" open to the public at large." • Where local governments acquired real property with state funds for use as a municipal parks - Charging a Higher Fee to Nonresidents The courts have upheld the assessment of a charge as well as a differential in user fees based upon municipal residence." These. decisions considered the intention of the governing board; the fact that local residents, through the local real property raz, had financed both the acquisition and maintenance of the municipal park; and that the facilities had a limited capacity.- I+r_m 9.2 KScelvee JAN 14 2010 Office of the Suot. and January 14, 2011 Board of Public Works City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Neighbors, Bruce A. Roebal 104 Worth Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)279-9821 bar2@comell.edu I wish to protest the bill I received for sidewalk repair on my property at 104 Worth Street, Ithaca, NY, completed during the summer of 2010. Invoice # 00013987, in the amount of $2,533.81, and due Monday, January 17, 2011. The work crews singled out and spent half the summer of 2010 parked on the 100-block of Worth Street and ripped up sidewalks that were in far better condition than a great many sidewalks in Ithaca. I was responsible for four blocks, but only fixed three since the fourth was only slightly pitted. I expected that the city might charge me for that one block, not for my entire sidewalk. But the city tore out an entire stretch of sidewalk that someone had labeled "unsatisfactory," a stretch of sidewalk with extensive, city -owned tree roots running underneath. This could be considered tree damage. (This section of sidewalk was much like the existing sidewalk at 321 Ithaca Road. Should that sidewalk be ripped up? Of course not.) I was billed in December, due in January. The mission of the Department of Public Works includes the phrase, "insuring the integrity and reasonable use of municipal resources." Is it reasonable to pursue utopian sidewalks, one block at a time, while ignoring sidewalks desperately in need of repair? This is akin to feeding some residents seven -course meals while allowing others to go hungry. There are so many sidewalks in Ithaca that are in far worse condition than the previous 100-block of Worth Street, sidewalks which receive massive pedestrian traffic (unlike Worth Street) such as Mitchell St., Elmwood Ave., Dryden Ave., Fairmount Ave., and Harvard Place. That's just my neighborhood. Some of these sidewalks are dangerous. For the past 3-4 years, I've specifically informed the city about two of these; 413 Dryden Ave. and the sidewalk at 307-309 Elmwood Ave. Take a look at 413 (corner Dryden and Fairmount). You'll be stunned by its jagged "mountain peaks." 307-309 Elmwood always has either ice or wet and slippery sections. I hurt myself on that sidewalk several years ago, hence the reason for my calls to the city. Look also at 106 Harvard Place. The list goes on. I did not realize I would receive a bill for the total work done, a bill which includes a 25% surcharge. I thought the city might replace the one block, although it was in good condition. The city replaced smuch more. I informed Lynne Yost of my concern that my entire sidewalk was being ripped up on September 9, 2010. I received the bill just last month and now Ms. Yost tells me I must protest this before the Board, a protest that may take several months. I simply can't afford this unjust bill. If I could, I would pay it under protest, but if I pay this, I cant afford my January city and county property taxes. My hands are tied. I always pay my taxes and am never late. I keep my property in great shape, shoveling the entire 100-block of Worth St. each time it snows, including all curb cuts. I do this for my neighbors and for school kids at the crosswalks at the corner of Ithaca Rd. and Elmwood. I previously lived on Hancock Street and did likewise on that block. If more people in the city treated their property and the properties of their neighbors as well as I do, that would be utopian. I wish the city to treat me as I do my neighbors, with integrity. The city should not be creating financial hardships for homeowners whose sidewalks are not in perfect condition while ignoring the sidewalks in need of immediate repair. The city has misplaced priorities. It must prioritize what needs to be done; triage, so to speak My sidewalk was but a stubbed toe while other sidewalks need a foot amputated. You should not treat the toe first. Can the city charge me the entire amount? Yes. Should the city charge me the entire amount? No. Will the city charge me the entire amount? I hope not. Sincerely, Bruce A. Roebal cc: Debra A. Parsons attachment: Invoice # 00013987 CITY OF ITHACA pFlrll� 108 E GREEN STREET ITHACA NY 14850� B P R'ASE� Bill to : BRUCE A ROEBAL MARSH MARIANNE R 104 WORTH St ITHACA, NY 14850 Property : 104 Worth St Invoice From: Citv Eneineer Invoice Date: 12/13/2010 Invoice # : 00013987 Account # : 00005003 Due Date : 01/17/2011 City Engineer General Billing Information (607)274-6580 Information specific in bill (607)274-6530 Invoice Ref. 20I0 SIDEWALK A Entry Date Item Category Item Description Qty Price Total 12/132010 SIDEWALK REPAIR- 4IN SIDEWALK 4"SIDEWALK 177.50 $11.42 $2,027.05 Additional Description: 2010 SIDEWALK REPAIR BILLS NOT PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS ACCRUE A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PERCENT PER ANNUM OR$3.00 PER MONTH, WHICHEVER IS GREATER PURSUANT TO CITY CODE. BILLS REMAINING UNPAID ON NOVEMBER I ST ARE ADDED TO THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE NEXT CITY TAX BILLING AND COLLECTED AS A PART THEREOF. Return this portion with your payment Make check payable to: Invoice Date : 12/13/2010 7/o.Ir' CITY OF ITHACA 1 CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE Invoice # : 00013987 108 E GREEN STREET 'Rto ITHACA NY 14850 BRUCE A ROEBAL MARSH MARIANNE R 104 WORTH St ITHACA,NY 14850 Please Pay on or before $2,533.81 01/17/2011 Amount Paid INV000113987 ODDDDDaooaOODDODD13987000000000aaaD4DDDDDODIDDDDDD253381009 f71� ;rc atji�___•%�� 6/24/2009 Bruce A Roebal CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-5890 om a OF THa U[N INQNEO! Telephuue: 8%/ZTh65a0 F.I. BrlM�M-5537 104 Worth St. Ithaca, NY 14850 SIDEWALK NOTICE OF DEFECT LOCATION: 104 Worth St TAX PARCEL #: 66.-2-12 City of Ithaca has inspected the condition of the public sidewalk along the street at this address. At this time of inspection, the following sidewalk was found to be defective: TREE DAMAGED WALK: 150 square feet of 4" thick sidewalk 0 square feet of 6" thick sidewalk 0 grind locations OTHER DAMAGED WALK: 50 square feet of 4" thick sidewalk 50 square feet of 6" thick sidewalk 0 grind locations This location is on the City's repair list and will remain on the Est until the repair work is completed by you or by the City. At the first opportunity, all defective sidewalk found at this location at the time of the work wll be replaced. City of Ithaca Code requires that sidewalk repairs made by City of Ithaca be billed to the owner at cost plus 25 % . You are encouraged to hire a contractor to do you repairs. Obtain a sidewalk pemdt so the location can be removed from City of Ithaca's repair list when work is completed. Please read the attached document and if you still have questions, you may contact the Office of the City Engineer at 607-274-6532. City of Ithaca, NY Office of the City Engineer TO: FROM: LM RtM 9, 3 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 OFFICE OF THE CRY ENGINEER Telephone: 607274-6530 I= 607/274-6587 January 21, 2011 Board of Public Works Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer Reserved Parking for Persons with Disabilities (RPPD) application for resident of 653 Chestnut St. The Engineering Office has received an application from Delphine Payne of 653 Chestnut St. requesting a RPPD space and, after review, recommends that the BPW grants the resident's request to have a RPPD space installed in front of 653 Chestnut Street. As indicated on the application (not enclosed due to personal information content), there are no feasible off-street parking locations for the applicant. Also, there are no other on -street reserved parking spaces for persons with disabilities in the vicinity. A resolution for your consideration is attached that would approve the request. The circle in the image below shows the approximate location of the proposed RPPD space. 1r: BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROPOSED RESOLUTION January 10, 2011 To Amend Vehicle and Traffic Schedules XXV WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is authorized by Section 346-4 of the City Code to adopt and to amend a system of Schedules in order to administer the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and WHEREAS, the Office of the City Engineer recommends approving a Reserved Parking for Persons with Disabilities (RPPD) application from a resident at 653 Chestnut Street, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works agrees that this request is in accordance with the policy for RPPD (as adopted in 2010), now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Schedule XXV be amended to add the following entry: Name of Street Side Location Chestnut Street East In front o£653 Chestnut Street 9.3 Request for Parking for Persons with Disabilities for 653 Chestnut Street Discussion Board of Public Works Adopted Much 3, 2010 Power to Act — Approval of Parkina Policy for Persons with Disabilities — Resolution By Commissioner Brock: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works adopted a Handicap Parking Policy on January 12, 2000 to act as a guideline for requests received for on -street handicap parking, and WHEREAS, the current Handicap Parking Policy has become outdated, and staff has met with the Disability Advisory Council to review and update the current parking policy, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works has reviewed and hereby adopts the Parking Policy for Persons with Disabilities dated March 3, 2010, as department policy for such parking in order for staff to continue to respond to requests. Carried Unanimously City of Ithaca Parking Policy for Persons with Disabilities Purpose: The City of Ithaca strives to provide convenient parking options for persons with disabilities while balancing the exclusive use of such parking spaces with the needs of the general public. To guide the provision of such parking options, the following policy has been developed and adopted by the Board of Public Works. Legal Requirements: The federal rules and regulations enacted for the implementation of Title Ill of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Building Code contain accessibility requirements for places of public accommodation and commercial facilities, including accessible parking spaces in parking lots and parking garages. For parking areas of 1 to 25 spaces, at least one (1) accessible space is required. The required number of accessible spaces increases as the size of the parking area increases, representing approximately two percent of the spaces. There are no requirements to provide accessible spaces where no other parking spaces are provided or required. There is no requirement to provide accessible spaces .on street." City of Ithaca Provision for Off -Street Accessible Parking: The City's parking lots and parking garages shall meet at least the minimum standards set by law in all cases. Whether accessible spaces beyond the minimum required are provided shall be based on reasonable accommodation, considering demand, cost, physical constraints, and utilization rates and other, relevant factors. Accessible spaces may be relocated, added or reduced, based on these factors and applicable laws and regulations. Page 11 The use of on -street, reserved parking for persons with disabilities is considered a partial accommodation, because the spaces generally do not meet the requirements for accessible spaces (e.g., they do not have access aisles or they may not be proximate to a curb ramp). The Central Business District (and to a lesser extent other business districts, such as Collegetown and the West End) contains a concentration of commercial and public facilities which are not required to provide off street parking, or, consequently, accessible parking. Municipal parking garages and lots do provide accessible parking spaces and are reasonably distributed. However, the use of on -street, reserved parking spaces for persons with disabilities within the areas of high puking demand in business districts can provide a greater level of accommodation and convenience for some persons with disabilities who do not require fully accessible parking spaces. For the purposes of this policy, any area in a business district with metered parking shall be assumed to be a high parking demand area. Since there is no requirement for on -street, accessible parking spaces in these areas, no minimum required number of such spaces has been established. The City is committed to reserving a reasonable number of on street spaces, in business districts, for persons with disabilities. The designation and actual number of such spaces shall be based on staff study, public requests, reasonable accommodation and factors considered for off-street accessible spaces. Spaces may be relocated, added or reduced based on these factors. Consideration will be given to issues of safety and practicality associated with the particular location, especially if the reserved spaces will not be fully accessible. Requests for On -Street, Reserved Parking for Persons with Disabilities (RPPD) Spaces in Residential Areas: The City of Ithaca provides on -street, RPPD in residential areas on a very limited basis. Such spaces are intended to serve a dual purpose, namely, providing at least partial accommodation to one of more nearby residents with disabilities, as well as utility to other persons with disabilities who may need such parking in that vicinity. The following criteria must be met to consider an on -street parking space for RPPD designation: 1. The request must be accompanied by valid proof of permanent disability status for parking purposes (as recognized by New York State in accordance with Sec.1203 (a-d) of NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law) of one or more persons residing (through rental or ownership) within 250 feet of the requested, reserved space. 2. If the place of residence of the person(s) on whose behalf the reserved space is requested is capable of having off-street parking under zoning codes, the request must include a statement concerning the duration of the request and why a curb cutfor off-street parking is not being requested instead. If the residence currently has off-street parking available, the request must include a statement concerning why the applicant's accessibility needs cannot be met through use or modification of the existing parking area. The Superintendent of Public Works shall create an application form for requests for on -street, reserved parking for people with disabilities. Upon application, staff shall evaluate the request If the request meets the above criteria and if it poses no traffic safety problem in the opinion of Page 12 the City Transportation Engineer, then the City Transportation Engineer shall forward the request to the Board of Public Works for consideration and may include a recommendation. If the request does not meet the above criteria or if it poses a traffic safety problem in the opinion of the City Transportation Engineer, then the City Transportation Engineer shall deny the request The applicant shall have the right to appeal this decision, in writing, to the Board of Public Works. If the request is granted by the Board, a sign designating the RPPD space shall be installed and maintained for five (5) years (except as provided for below). Prior to the end of said five-year period, the City shall notify the initial applicant that the sign will be removed unless the request is renewed. If the City finds that the applicant no longer resides within 250 feet of the designated space, the City may remove the sign. It should be noted that an on -street, RPPD parking space is not reserved for the applicant or any specific person, but is available to any person with a valid parking permit for a person with disabilities. Page 13 CITY OF ITHACA Item 9,4 o`.` •�� 108 East Green Street - 3uI Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 sccy ` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 'ObtNiF,O JOANN CORNISH. DIRECTOR OF PLINNWG AND DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. Di;SARNO. DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone, Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/[URA - 607-274.6559 Email: planninRC cityn0thaa.oeg Email: imaCcityoOtharant, Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 TO: William Gray, Superintendent of Public Works Members, Board of Public Works FROM: City of Ithaca Parks Commission DATE: January 18, 2011 RE: Parks Commission Resolutions Attached please find two resolutions from the January 11, 2011 meeting of the City of Ithaca Parks Commission. The first is a resolution of support for the Drop -In Children's Center's proposal to install additional fencing in Auburn Park. The second resolution is an approval of the proposal to expand the Ithaca Fire Department and Tompkins County Emergency Services Training Center, with the request that the City seek an alternate permanent location for the facility. If you have any questions or comments regarding these materials, please contact Megan Gilbert at mgilbertAcitvofithaca.org or 274-6560. An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to worhrome diveni0catlon.- CP CITY OF ITHACA PARKS COMMISSION RESOLUTION —January 11 2011 Support for the Drop -In Children's Center's Proposal to Create a Semi -Enclosed Play Area in Auburn Park WHEREAS, the Drop -In Children's Center approached the Parks Commission in September 2010 with a proposal to install fencing in Conley Park to create a safe play area for the Center's young children, and WHEREAS, after discussing the proposal, the Parks Commission determined that the addition of a fence would disrupt the open, natural environment of Conley Park and that a partial fence may not be adequate due to the adjacent steep embankment and street traffic, and WHEREAS, the Parks Commission suggested that Auburn Park would be a better location due to the existing play ground equipment, the open green space available for running and activities, and the existing fencing in portions of the park, and WHEREAS, the Drop -In Children's Center then proposed to extend the existing fencing to create a perimeter fence around Auburn Park, and this proposal was presented to the surrounding neighborhood, and WHEREAS, some neighborhood residents raised concerns over the complete loss of open green space in the northern end of the park and the possibility that a perimeter fence would lead to use of Auburn Park as an off -leash dog park, and WHEREAS, to address these concerns, the proposal has been modified to include three large strategically -placed openings to create multiple entries, provide mower access, and deter use of the park as an off -leash dog park, and WHEREAS, the Parks Commission believes that additional fencing in Auburn Park will address the needs of the Drop -In Children's Center while enhancing the park by providing additional safe play area for neighborhood children, and WHEREAS, the Parks Commission also believes that the modified proposal addresses the concerns raised by neighborhood residents, and WHEREAS, the Drop -In Children's Center has funding available for the installation of the proposed fencing, and the proposal will be budget -neutral to the City; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Parks Commission hereby supports the Drop -In Children's Center's proposal to extend the existing fencing in Auburn Park to form a perimeter fence with three large openings to create a semi -enclosed play area. No quorum; unanimous support of those Commissioners present (D. Krall, D. Klein, R. Moundry, S. VanDeMark) i -" ''•••-•••^•••� v,. ncw�.uJanuary 77 ZU77 Approval of Ithaca A Department and Tompkins County Emergency Services Training Center Expansion Project WHEREAS, in 2009 the Ithaca Fire Department presented a proposal to expand the fire training center to the Parks Commission, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Fire Training Center is located within Stewart Park and adjacent to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, and WHEREAS, the Parks Commission does not believe the fire training center is an appropriate park use, and WHEREAS, following the presentation of the proposal in 2009, the Parks Commission stated it was not in favor of the expansion and encouraged the City to seek an alternate location for the facility, and WHEREAS, as of January 2011, an alternate location remains unavailable and the Ithaca Fire Department requires additional enclosed space for training purposes; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Parks Commission is willing to allow the proposed expansion of the Ithaca Fire Department Training Center at 200 Pier Road, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Parks Commission strongly encourages the City to seek an alternate permanent location for the Ithaca Fire Department Training Center. Moved by D. Klein Seconded by M. Hobble In Favor: D. Klein, M. Hobble, S. VanDeMark Against: D. Krall, R. Moudry Abstain: 0 r (� k kk3 { + / ; / ■ - z z7 �])\\ rq �/ /(\ {/a\ \ )!!\2). \ Cq \\k/)ƒ\\\(/7w® as ,)#];]/=/m2q*)(% �• r-O 5° §4 4au=<m/7} 5 tl gal; a 6 1t i kk pp ........... 1; Ep Z ua ......... .......... _...____ .__ 8 —1 a d x� Y e R GP d n ITHACA FIR! GEPAgThIDNT 3/20/09 WHEREAS, the Ithaca Fire Department Training Center, at 200 Pier Road, and the mission it serves is critical to the delivery of fire and emergency services within and around the City of Ithaca; and, WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Fire Department and the County of Tompkins have partnered in the support, operation, and use of the Training Center; and, WHEREAS, the Training Center is utilized by many different agencies, including, but not limited to, the Ithaca Fire Department, other Tompkins County Fire Departments, the Tompkins County administered New York State Field Training Program, various fire departments from neighboring counties, the Ithaca Police Department, the Ithaca/Tompkins joint SWAT, the New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control, the City of Ithaca Human Resources Department, and Borg- Warner Automotive, among others; and, WHEREAS, key users of the Training Center have developed a proposal to increase the utility and effectiveness of the Training Center that would add additional classroom, utility space, and an additional lavatory to the existing classroom building; and, WHEREAS, the proposed addition would remain within the bounds of the current Training Center property, as defined by the chain link fence that defines the perimeter; and, WHEREAS, the addition would provide additional enclosed space for use in inclement weather conditions, thus facilitating efficient use of trainee and instructor time and resources; and, WHEREAS, the funds for this addition will be derived entirely from outside sources, with no additional appropriations required from the City of Ithaca; and, WHEREAS, the Ithaca Fire Department and the City of Ithaca will administer the funds and manage the expansion project; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, capital project #745 is hereby established for the purpose of accepting funds from other sources towards the design, development, and construction of an addition to the classroom building at the Ithaca Fire Department Training Center; and, be it further RESOLVED, no work shall be authorized, nor any expense approved that shall not have sufficient funds allocated in such capital project.