HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-11 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, March 16, 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: 15 min.)
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons before the Board
4. Response to Public
S. Reports
Special Committees of the Board
Council Liaison
Board Liaisons
Superintendent and Staff
Other Department Heads
6. Approval of Minutes (10 min.)
6.1 November 10, 2010, Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes - Resolution
6.2 January 26, 2011, Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes - Resolution
6.3 February 16, 2011, Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes - Resolution
7. Administration and Communications
8. VOTING ITEMS
8.1 Buildings. Properties, Refuse, and Transit (5 min)
8.1 Request for Awning at 215 Dryden Road - Resolution
8.2 Highways. Streets, and Sidewalks (10 min.)
8.2 Traffic Maintenance Agreement with Wide Waters - Resolution
8.3 Parking and Traffic
8.4 Creeks, Bridges, and Parks (10 min.)
8.4 Fees for Use of City Real Property (Golf Course Docks) - Draft
Resolution
8.5 Water and Sewer
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.1 Bridge Means Restrictions— Presentation (45 min.)
9.2 Possible Removal of the Wood Street and South Street Traffic Diverters —
Discussion on Additional Data Desired (5 min.)
9.3 Snow Storm Response — Discussion (15 min.)
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. All meetings are voting
meetings, which opens with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are 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 on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee
agendas, with the speaker or author Invited to attend.
Page 2
Notes for BPW Agenda, March 9. 2011
8.1 Request for Awning at 215 Dryden Road — Resolution
Attached is an updated resolution for this request. The backup materials are with the agenda
for February 16, 2010.
8.2 Traffic Maintenance Agreement with Wide Waters — Resolution
The City Attorney has asked to have this on the agenda; I expect we will distribute materials
electronically early in the week. The signal in question is the last signal going south on
Route 13 before leaving the city, serving the Wide Waters development, including Home
Depot. Because it is a traffic signal which serves a commercial private development, rather
than the general traffic circulation on city streets, these types of signals usually have
individual agreements with the developer. Previously, it was the NYSDOT's practice to
require a developer to obtain a license for a "private" signal on State Right Of Way (ROW).
After years of less than satisfactory experience, they have changed their approach to require
the developer to sign a maintenance agreement in addition to the license, which allows the
state to do maintenance on the signal, and pays them to do it based on an average cost in
dollars per year. We have recommended a similar approach. This has come up because
the developer is trying to subdivide the property and DPW staff has expressed concern that
there is no agreement for the signal. I am not happy because I think it will be harder to deal
with city or public impact issues related to the developed property if it is broken down into
smaller individual properties. As an example, we can require a developer to consolidate
their traffic into one driveway, but we may not be able to deny individual property owners
their own driveway if the property is subdivided.
8.4 Fees for Use of City Real Property (Golf Course Docks) — Draft Resolutions
The Board has heard from Jeff Cleveland and Robert Haney concerning their current
licenses for docks along the Cayuga Inlet. The Board tabled the current resolution pending
some additional discussion and a chance to review any information the licensees might want
to submit. I have spoken with Mr. Haney has submitted material for your consideration. The
City Attorney has drafted a new resolution which is provided here. The second copy of the
resolution makes it easy to see the proposed changes, and the first copy is a clean
presentation of that resolution. He has provided a few notes indicating his phase -in
approach.
9.1 Bridge Means Restrictions — Presentation
Representatives of Cornell's Means Restriction Study team (who have been working as
members of the joint Comell -City team) will make a brief presentation of the architect's pre -
schematic design proposals. While they will present the seven bridges in the study to give
context for the solutions suggested, we will be focused on the three city bridges (Thurston
Avenue and the two Stewart Avenue bridges). The Means Restriction web site is
http:// meansrestrictionstudy .fs.comell.edu. You can see a video of one of the four public
presentations they did last week (March 2nd) and enter or read comments which have been
accumulating since November. Cornell has a collection of "resources" that are related to the
study available at the site. Cornell plans additional public forums and there will be a
presentation to Common Council. I believe that is in May and is supposed to be the
schematic proposal. As I believe was expressed in a recent meeting this design work is
Page 3
supposed to answer the question of what "means restriction" might look like. The
development of this work does not preclude the discussion about means restriction itself.
9.2 Possible Removal of the Wood Street and South Street Traffic Diverters —
Discussion on Additional Data Desired
Staff wanted to have a little more direction from the Board before it created material for your
review. If you don't know what you want, we can do a more expansive review of options. If
you know what you want, or what you don't want, we can concentrate our efforts somewhat.
This is on the agenda for you to provide direction or to ask for additional data. It is not an
open discussion, and is five minutes, ten minutes if you must. Tim provided a memo with his
questions.
9.3 Snow Storm Response — Discussion
Carolyn requested this as a discussion item while it's still fresh in our minds. She was
concerned about pedestrian issues as well as resident issues. I know we had equipment
down and staff who had trouble getting to work. Ray can tell you what he would like to
improve. I believe Larry Roberts wants to provide comments from the view of the individuals
who have a difficult time moving around the city if snow is not cleaned up in a timely manner.
W.J. Gray, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
March 11, 2011
Page 4
8.1 Request for Awning at 215 Dryden Road —Resolution
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received a request to allow an awning for a
business at 215 Dryden Road, which proposed awning would encroach upon the City's right -
of-way for Dryden Road (above the public sidewalk), and
WHEREAS, awnings that encroach into City -owned air space are permitted under Section
170 -13.B of the City's Municipal Code, but, under Section 170 -5.F, require a revocable
license for such encroachment, from the Board of Public Works, as well as approval of the
structure itself by the Building Commissioner, and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent has determined that the proposed encroachment does not
interfere with the City's current use of the Dryden Road right -of -way, and will not pose a
danger to public use of the sidewalk, provided that the awning meets all requirements of the
Building Commissioner and is properly maintained, and that all components of the awning
are at least seven (7) feet above the surface of the sidewalk, and
WHEREAS, as proposed, the awning will project almost three (3) feet into the public air
space, and will be ten (10) feet in width, thus occupying an area within the City right-of-way
of slightly less than thirty (30) square feet , and
WHEREAS, the 2011 -12 schedule of fees for use of City-owned property requires an initial
application fee of $200 for new licenses, but stipulates that the annual use fee shall be
waived for "minor' encroachments (defined as "less than 40 square feet and not a mobile
vending cart"), now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby grants the request for an awning
encroachment at 215 Dryden Road, as proposed, contingent upon approval of the awning
structure by the Building Commissioner and upon the execution of a license /agreement and
submission of the required application form and fee (and renewal fees for any subsequent
terms) and proof of required insurance, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon consultation with the Superintendent, Building
Commissioner and City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute a license /agreement
allowing said encroachment, revocable upon 90 days' written notice by the City in the event
that the encroached upon City property is required for any City purpose, and containing the
usual terms and conditions, including those specified in Chapter 170 of the City's Municipal
Code.
Page 5
8.4A Fees for Use of City Real Property — Boat Slips at Newman Golf Course Draft
Resolution (amendment from 319111 included)
WHEREAS, in the mid- 1980s, the City granted revocable licenses to private businesses, which
allowed them to construct and use moorings for Floating docks on City -owned land adjacent to
the Newman Golf Course, along the east bank of the Cayuga Inlet (off Pier Road), which
businesses have then rented said dock space (and associated parking and storage space, on
adjacent City land) to others, at market rates, and
WHEREAS, the City has allowed such licenses to be renewed, each calendar year, until the
present, with the annual license fees having been set according to a formula created bythe City
many years ago, and
WHEREAS, in the course of investigating the potential use of the Citys Newman Golf Course for
deposit of dredge spoils, the City received a legal opinion from special counsel which concludes
that, in light of the circumstances of the City's acquisition of the golf course lands (which extend
from Fall Creek to the Cayuga Inlet on the west) and the City's treatment of those lands overthe
past 75 years or more, "it is very likely that a court would find sufficient evidence of [its] implied
dedication [as parkland]," and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has not yet considered whether it will accept and affirm this
legal opinion, and conform its future treatment of the property with all the conditions and legal
requirements applicable to public parkland, and
WHEREAS, in the absence of such a determination by Common Council, or direction to the
contrary, the Board must assume that it can and should continue to maintain the type of
licensing arrangement it has had for over 25 years, at least forthe coming boating season, asto
do otherwise (for 2011) at this late date would impose an unreasonable economic hardship upon
the licensees, who have already made 2011 rental arrangements for the slips in question, with
their customers, and
WHEREAS, in response to instruction from New York State auditors, that the City obtain fair
rental value for use of its land by others, Common Council revised Chapter 170 of the Cityl Code
( "Use of City Real Property'), so as to require that fees for such use be based on fair rental
value as determined with the assistance of a professional appraisal, and
WHEREAS, said appraisal, completed for the City in the winter of 2010/2011, recommended a
license fee of $350 per slip, per season, for the boat slips on Pier Road, which rate was
incorporated by the Board into its 2011 -12 schedule of fees forthe use of City land (adopted on
December 22, 2010), and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent has notified the current licensees of the possible, future change
in arrangements, if the Common Council affirms the status of the land as parkland, now
therefore be it
Page 6
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent shall offer to the current licensees of the Pier Road dock
slips the opportunity to enter into new licenses for the 2011 boating season, which licenses shall
be consistent with the terms and conditions stipulated by Chapter 170 of the City Code, and
which shall reflect the fees recently established by the Board for "Boat Slips," as well as the
recapture the County and School District property taxes now being assessed (on the basis of
"non- public" use) for the land in question, and be it further
RESOLVED, That staff is directed to prepare a briefing for the Board, to be presented at or
before the Board's meeting on April 27, 2011, regarding the above - referenced legal opinion and
the potential implications of parkland status, so that the Board of Public Works may make a
recommendation to Common Council as to whether the Council should affirm parkland status, or
pursue a different course.
NOTE: New language suggested by City Attorney, based on discussion at 3/9/11
BPW meeting, is underlined and bolded; language proposed to be deleted is etrisken.
Use of City Real Property — Boat Slips at Newman Golf Course — Resolution
(w/ amendment approved on 3/9/11, prior to postponement)
WHEREAS, in the mid- 1980s, the City granted revocable licenses to private businesses, which
allowed them to construct and use moorings for floating docks on City -owned land adjacent to
the Newman Golf Course, along the east bank of the Cayuga Inlet (off Pier Road), which
businesses have then rented said dock space (and associated parking and storage space, on
adjacent City land) to others, at market rates, and
WHEREAS, the City has allowed such licenses to be renewed, each calendar year, until the
present, with the annual license fees having been set according to a formula created bythe City
many years ago, and
WHEREAS, in the course of investigating the potential use of the City's Newman Golf Course for
deposit of dredge spoils, the City received a legal opinion from special counsel which concludes
that, in light of the circumstances of the City's acquisition of the golf course lands (which extend
from Fall Creek to the Cayuga Inlet on the west) and the City's treatment of those lands overthe
past 75 years or more, "it is very likely that a court would find sufficient evidence of [its] implied
dedication [as parkland]," and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has not yet considered whether it will accept and affirm this
legal opinion, and conform its future treatment of the property with all the conditions and legal
requirements applicable to public parkland, and
WHEREAS, in the absence of such a determination by Common Council, or direction to the
contrary, the Board must assume that it can and should continue to maintain the type of
licensing arrangement it has had for over 25 years, at least forthe coming boating season, asto
Page 7
do otherwise (for 2011) at this late date would impose an unreasonable economic hardship upon
the licensees, who have already made 2011 rental arrangements for the slips in question, with
their customers, and
WHEREAS, in response to instruction from New York State auditors, that the City obtain fair
rental value for use of its land by others, Common Council revised Chapter 170 of the City Code
( "Use of City Real Property'), so as to require that fees for such use be based on fair rental
value as determined with the assistance of a professional appraisal, and
WHEREAS, said appraisal, completed for the City in the winter of 2010/2011, recommended a
license fee of $350 per slip, per season, for the boat slips on Pier Road, which rate was
incorporated by the Board into its 2011 -12 schedule of fees forthe use of City land (adopted on
December 22, 2010), and
\WHEREAS, the Superintendent has notified the current licensees of the possible, future change
in arrangements, if the Common Council affirms the status of the land as parkland. and
WHEREAS, in light of the lateness of City's decision - making and notification of the
affected licensees, relative to the timing of their leasing of boat slips to their customers.
for the 2011 season, and the substantial increase in fees for this category — which, if the
full, $350 /slip rate were applied, along with the pass - through of County and School
District taxes (for the first time), would represent a total, one -year increase of
approximately 278% ($7.346.28) and 730% ($5.224.16), respectively, for these two
licensees - it is reasonable in this case to phase in the base fee increase, over a two -year
period, and thus to apply a base rate of $220 per slip for the 2011 season for this
particular category (with the understanding that the regular, full rate for the "Boat Slips"
category will be applied in 2012, if the licenses are renewed); now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent shall offer to the current licensees of the Pier Road dock
slips the opportunity to enter into new licenses for the 2011 boating season, which licenses shall
be consistent with the terms and conditions stipulated by Chapter 170 of the City Code, and
which shall reflect a
base use fee of $220 per slip (plus 10 %, as applied to all categories), for 2011, as well as
the full recapture of County and School District property taxes now being assessed (on the
basis of "non- public" use) for the land in question, and be it further
RESOLVED, That staff is directed to prepare a briefing for the Board, to be presented at or
before the Board's meeting on April 27, 2011, regarding the above - referenced legal opinion and
the potential implications of parkland status, so that the Board of Public Works may make a
recommendation to Common Council as to whether the Council should affirm parkland status, or
pursue a different course.
CITY ATTORNEY'S NOTE:
The Board indicated that it would consider applying a per -slip rate that would "phase -in" the
increase (in use fees) in roughly equal steps, over a two -year period.
Page 8
To figure out what the first -year rate would need to be, so as to accomplish that result, I went
through the following exercise, for each of the licensees in question (i.e., 730 Willow Ave, LLC — which
has 20 slips, and Pier Road Properties, LLC — which has 12 slips):
1. Multiply # of slips x $350 /slip (rate in adopted schedule), and add 10% (per schedule).
2. From that sum, subtract the most recent license fee (for 2010), to determine what the increase
would be for 2011 if the fidl rate were applied. (This does not take into account the "pass -
through" of County and School taxes, which the Board indicated it wished to recover, in any
case.)
3. Calculate what the rate for 2011 would need to be, in order to generate approximately half of
the increase (with the understanding that if the license were to be renewed for 2012, the fill
rate would be applied).
Because the "old" method of determining license fees was not on a per -slip basis, the two licensees in
question face increases ofdifferemt proportions; so the exercise above does not yield a single rate that works
perfectly for both Assuming it is desirable to use a single rate for both licensees, the closest "match"
appears to be a 2011 rate of approximately $220 /slip. This would reduce the 2011 increase in the base fee
for 730 Willow Ave, LLC, from approximately $5,055 to $2,196 (which would be 43% of the full rate).
For Pier Road Properties, LLC, the increase would be reduced from approximately $3,905 to $2,189 (56%
of the full rate). Obviously, the percentage impact is not the same, but to me this still seems preferable to
using different base rates for the same type of use.
Page 9
March 9, 2011
Mr. Gray,
This letter is for the purpose of informing you and The Board of Public Works of issues that relate to
the raising of license fees and taxes both for this year and in the future as it impacts our business. We
understand there to be 2 issues. Specifically, the change in cost resulting from increased license fees and
taxes and the potential change of use of the property to a Park land.
First, with regard to the increase of fees for this year:
• As discussed previously, we have already collected this year's slip rental and without knowledge of
the increase in rate did not adjust our rates to our customers. It is worth noting that we have only
increased out slip rental once in the last 5 years and that amounted to $25 a slip several years ago.
As a result, any increase in cost will be a direct loss to us against anticipated net revenue.
• We have a $9000 debt service payment for the docks to Mrs. McPherson due on March 15 that is
contingent on our renting the slips this year. We also have approximately $1500 of expenses planned
for April concerning preparing the Docks for use as well as equipment and manpower to install the
docks in April. We therefore request that we he given assurance that we will be able to use the slips
this year.
• Finally, we have 20 customers when added to Jeffs 12 who would be negatively impacted by not
having a slip this year. There is not an excess of slips in Ithaca or for that matter Watkins Glenn that
can handle large sailboats in these numbers.
Second, 2012 and beyond:
• With regard to the Park land requirements it seems that the test of recreational use is not an issue.
The public use test could also be considered appropriate using the theory that the slips are available
to the general public but not without cost. This finds precedent in the case of many public venues,
which charge for use as well as services provided by either the public entity or it commercial
vendors.
• If the City decides to make the golf course park land it might consider exclusion of the shore. The
area between the road and the shore is not really desirable for general use as it lies along the Golf
Course fairway. This presents a danger of flying golf balls. A larger number of people using the area
would also be a distraction to the golfers.
• Finally we would like to present some input on the value of the land that may or may not have been
in the appraiser's thinking:
• Land not suited for general use as noted above
There is no vehicular access to the property.
Page 10
• The terms of the lease from the City being year to year with a 30 day bailout, limit the ability to
capitalize improvements such as power, water, dock lighting etc. This very lowers the value of
the slips relative to others in the area.
The sedimentation of the inlet is beginning to restrict theme of sailboats in the inlet generally.
Finally, we want to assure you that we believe the City should be compensated fairly for its land and do
not object to a reasonable increase. However, we do request that you consider our input Regarding the
2011 fee that is proposed, we request that an equitable adjustment be made do to the negative economic
impact on our business as described herein.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Haney
Finger Lakes Sailing
Page 11
041 •.,.
.�^tr'" F
v:' � i�
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 6072746530 1ax: 607/2746587
To:
Board of Public Works
From:
Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer
Date:
March 11, 2011
Re:
Diverters on South and Wood Streets
After the public hearing two days ago in regard to the "diverters" on Wood and
South Streets, I had a few questions and realized that you really have a number
of options in front of you. In talking with Bill, it seems useful to have a short
discussion at your next meeting to check in on a few things.
First, we would like to know if you have any questions or are interested in any
addition data or information about traffic in the neighborhood. We can't collect
new daily traffic counts until warmer weather, but if there are other questions,
we can try to provide information or analysis.
Second, I would like to know if you have any direction yet about how many of
the four devices in the neighborhood to remove. So far, it seems that you are
interested in at least granting the Ithaca Housing Authority's request to remove
the diverter at South Street and Fair Street. However, the Fire Department seems
to be requesting removal of the other diverter, as well as the two speed humps
(one on South Titus between Fair St and Plain St and the other on Wood Street
between Meadow St. and Fair St). I don't have a sense of how far you want to go
toward this.
Finally, I would be interested to know which direction you we leaning on the
question of what to do after these things are removed from the street. This
response can range from having a funded plan in place before any demolition
occurs to more of a "wait and see" approach that would have us monitor traffic
annually after removal. The capital project that built traffic calming devices in
other places in the City has been spent and closed out, so addition capital funds
would need approval from Common Council; however, with some coordination
and planning, it may be possible for the Department of Public Works to construct
new traffic calming devices. But first, it would be useful to know if you would
like recommendations for new traffic calming devices at this point or if you'd
like to have us monitor the situation and report back to you at a later date.
'M Equal Oppottwdry Employer with a commi,men< to w Womc diversification." �J