HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2013-07-08BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. July 8, 2013
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Darling, Morache, Leccese Acharya
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Lavine
Acting/Acting Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
DAC Liaison – Roberts (arrived at 6:20 p.m.)
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Transportation Engineer – Logue
Community Development Director – Bohn
Plumbing Inspector – Albanese
EXCUSED:
Commissioner Goldsmith
Common Council Liaison – Fleming
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to or deletions from the agenda.
MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS:
The Mayor had no communications at this time.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Tom Hanna, for Friends of Newman Golf Course, provided the following update to the
Board:
The BPW approved a three-year plan for the continued management of the golf course
by the city. It included a three-year budget that would make the golf course financially
self-sustaining by the end of the 2015 season.
The 2013 budget in that plan was made a part of the Mayor's proposed budget, with a
modification that added $5,000 to the crucial $50,000 Seasonal Wage line. Common
Council approved that exact budget on a unanimous vote.
Included in that budget was a new city position for an entry-level Golf Course
Manager. This was pegged in the approved plan at starting salary of $42,000. Common
Council made this new position a part of the official roster of the City in a unanimous
vote in April this year.
Friends of Newman drew heavily on Tim Lane, as the acting golf course manager, in
putting together this plan. We and the city owe Tim a great deal for this, and all he has
done for Newman since Steve Torrant retired at the end of the 2010 season.
Before the budget was even passed, we promised the BPW that we would keep them
informed how the Newman management plan and budget was working. As Friends
secretary, I gave a report in May. It is time for me to give another report at the July 8
meeting of the BPW
NEWMAN BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PLAN MID-YEAR REPORT
2013 BUDGET
REVENUES: Exact figures are not available, but based on events so far, revenues are
lagging behind the "boom season" of 2012, mostly because of cold and wet weather in
the early months. Nevertheless, memberships are up over the 2012 levels, and total
league revenues are exceeding 2012 numbers. Failure to put a new concession
contract in place means that food and beverage revenues are frozen at the 2012 level
of $2000 - not enough to cover the actual cash costs from city funds.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
2
Failure to have the course fully staffed by the targeted date of January 15 was a
significant set back for marketing. With the new Golf Course Manager not coming on
board until August, little time remains in the 2013 season to meet revenue goals.
EXPENSES: Personnel and fringe expenses are the largest portion of the budget Given
known personnel expenses and commitments, we anticipate a maximum salary and
wage savings of no more than $10,000 out of a total budget of $123,000. Total fringe is
budgeted at nearly $68,000. No savings are anticipated. All other expense categories
are projected to be expended. Those that are not tied directly to revenue streams such
as golfer supplies and golf cart leasing are, with a few exceptions, under the control of
the half-time working supervisor.
2013 SUMMARY: Expenses could exceed revenues by as much as $50,000, an
amount roughly equal to the average for the past 12 years. The planned called for
improving that picture by $10,000, but that seems beyond reach now.
2014 AND 2015 PROJECTIONS. Salaries and wages for ensuing years will increase
from the $123,000 baseline to a minimum of $131,000 with zero raises. The $68,000 in
fringe will rise proportionately to $72,000. There is not only no room for cuts in non-
personal expenses, but there is also a clear need to begin new funding to replace the
fully depreciated equipment pool. With the built-in overruns imposed by the city (not the
golf course) the new management plan has been overturned.
Friends of Newman has not yet been invited to participate in the 2014 budget process.
The new Golf Course Manager may have little say in the budget process for 2014.
Newman Golf Course property, including all the city land bounded by Pier Road, the
Flood Control Channel, and Fall Creek is official Parkland of the City of Ithaca, and is
the responsibility of the Board of Public Works. This is not the report Friends of
Newman expected to make now, just 6 months after the 2013 fiscal year began. We ask
that a subcommittee of the BPW be established to work with staff and Friends of
Newman to review and update both the plan and the budget for Newman Golf Course
for 2014 through 2016. We also ask that reports on the Newman plan be scheduled on
the BPW agenda monthly through December 2013.
Finally, we need to report that two other items of the plan have not been addressed.
First, the food and beverage concession, which was intended to be re-negotiated and in
place by January 15, 2013, has yet to be put out for bids for the 2014 season. An RFP
needs to be drawn up and circulated by the end of September to assure it can be
awarded by January 15, 2014 latest. Second, the plan's call for incorporation of all
Newman Parkland revenues and expenses into the program budget for Newman has
not yet been recommended by the BPW. The purpose of that action is to give BPW and
the city a clear picture of what the Newman Parkland costs, how much revenue it
generates, and what public benefits it generates for the city and its citizens.
Mrs. and Mr. Ross Keeler, 719 North Aurora Street, addressed the Board regarding
their appeal of a large water bill which is the result of their toilet running constantly while
they were away. They worked with staff at the water department who researched their
water use history and payments over past years, and it was determined that they've
paid for more water than they've actually used. They were hoping that the Board might
consider reducing their bill by the amount that they overpaid to the city through the
years.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC:
Commissioner Acharya suggested that the Board re-arrange the agenda, and move the
Keeler’s appeal to the first item of discussion for the Board.
No Board Member objected.
Acting/Acting Supt. Gray responded to comments regarding the water bill for 719 N.
Aurora Street. He noted that city water bills show certain properties are being charged
the minimum usage rate when in fact what it is a minimum charge to hook up to the
city’s system. That system provides the equipment, services, water, and just because
the water is not used doesn't mean that the water department wasn't staffed or
equipment wasn't used because it was. So, the property owners are not really
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
3
overpaying. The reason for the appeal is a very human one but does not reflect the
City’s cost of providing water and sewer services. The water was supplied and taken
away and treated even though it wasn't used.
Mayor Myrick questioned the Board as to whether or not the Board should add Mr.
Hanna’s request to the July 22, 2013 agenda to discuss the golf course or should a
meeting of the sub-committee be held first? The Board determined that the sub-
committee should meet with Mr. Hanna and staff to discuss the golf course and budget
for next year prior to this item being placed on the Board’s agenda for action.
REPORTS:
Director of Engineering West reported that bids are due for the Commons utility project
on July 11th. There will be a special meeting of the Board on July 15, 2013 to
specifically award the bids.
Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that the contractor at the Wastewater Treatment plant has
completed the remediation work for all the coal tar underneath the receiving facility.
Tomorrow, work will start on the pre-cast foundation for a tank there. He also reported
that crews started the water main replacement project on Edgecliff Place this week.
Asst. Supt. Whitney further reported that crews on the Commons are in the process of
reviving some old valves that were abandoned in 1970's. Machinists are looking at
constructing a special operating nut for the valves that would isolate certain areas of the
Commons during the reconstruction, and even after such that if there is another leak the
city can have quicker response times to routine or emergency work needed, and isolate
the leak area so only a few locations would not have service while it is be repaired
rather than a large portion of the locations being without service.
Acting/Acting Supt. Gray explained that a number of valves on the Commons were
initially installed in and around the 1900’s. When the Commons was built in the 1970’s
they were cut off and taken out of service even though they could have been used, if
needed, had they not been taken apart. He stated that reviving these valves now will
result in fewer areas of the Commons being without water/sewer services, during
emergency and/or routine repair work in the future, so crews are working to make sure
all valves are operational.
He further reported that the Mayor presented his 2014 budget message within the last
ten days or so that proposes a -2% budget for all departments, including required
contract salary increases. He said the preparation of the budget will be stressful for
everyone, and he does not know that the City will see much change in revenues which
are stabilized at this point. He stated that expenses continue to be what they are, and
will make it hard for staff to put a budget together because of that. He noted that staff
will need the Board to provide direction on what can and cannot be left out of the
department’s budget. The City will need to start to think about running fewer plow
trucks, providing less overtime, doing less mowing, etc. as financial decisions are made.
Mayor Myrick noted that after five consecutive years of negative budgets, it does not get
easier to put a budget together for the City of Ithaca. It only becomes harder and more
challenging to meet the needs of the City, the public, infrastructure maintenance, and
continue to provide necessary services such as water/sewer, emergency services, road
maintenance, etc. Both he and Acting/Acting Supt. Gray noted that the City will need to
make some really difficult decisions about what things will not get done in the future.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the June 10, 2013 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes –
Resolution
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the June 10, 2013 Board of Public Works meeting be
approved as published.
Ayes (5) Jenkins, Darling, Leccese, Acharya, Myrick
Nays (0)
Abstentions (1) Morache
Carried
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
4
Approval of the June 24, 2013 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes –
Resolution
By Commissioner Morache: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the June 24, 2013 Board of Public Works meeting be
approved as published.
Carried Unanimously
VOTING ITEMS:
Buildings, Properties, Refuse and Transit:
Request for Encroachment Agreement/License at 1013 West State Street –
Resolution
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
WHEREAS, Jerry Dietz, the owner of the property at 1013 West State Street (Tax Map
Parcel No. 58-1-2), in the City of Ithaca, has requested an encroachment
agreement/license from the City onto adjacent City-owned real property located at 1013
West State Street.
WHEREAS, the encroachment consists of the following:
A rectangular area, located approximately 30 feet from the eastern bank of the
Flood Control Channel and adjacent to the northwestern face of the building
located at 1013 West State Street, to encroach on City land by a distance of
approximately 15 feet, for a span of approximately 37 feet, and encompassing
approximately 555 square feet, which is shown on a drawing entitled “Jerry
Dietz’s Just Because Preliminary” prepared by JKD Architect, dated May 25,
2013, and
WHEREAS, that the property owner plans to create a patio and awning covering within
the City owned property, and
WHEREAS, the property owner agrees to mow, trim, and maintain grass on the City
owned property, including the patio area and an area within the distance of 40 feet from
the northwest side of the building located at 1013 West State Street, and
WHEREAS, if the property owner elects to terminate this license or discontinue use of
the licensed property, the property owner shall bear the cost of restoring the licensed
area to lawn, and
WHEREAS, such license shall be subject to any Department of Environmental
Conservation easement or any other property rights of the State of New York; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent does not anticipate any conflicts in the near future with
public works uses or needs; and
WHEREAS, the 2013-14 schedule of fees for use of City-owned property requires an
initial application fee of $100 for new licenses, and stipulates that the annual use fee for
Marine Commercial license fee category shall be calculated at $0.47 per square foot
resulting in an annual use fee of $260.85, with such rate thereafter subject to
adjustment by the consumer price index and property taxes assessed against the City,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby grants the request for an
encroachment at 1013 West State Street, as proposed, contingent upon: the execution
of a license/agreement containing a term or condition of such agreement which states
that the property owner agrees to mow, trim, and maintain grass on the City owned
property, including the patio area and an area within the distance of 40 feet from the
northwest side of the building located at 1013 West State Street; the property owner
shall bear the cost of restoring the licensed area to lawn if the property owner elects to
terminate this license or discontinue use of the licensed property; the license shall be
subject to any Department of Environmental Conservation easement or any other
property rights of the State of New York; submission of the required application form
and fee (and renewal fees for any subsequent terms); and submission of proof of
required insurance, and be it further
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
5
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon consultation with the Superintendent 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.
Carried Unanimously
Request for Encroachment Agreement/License at 314 Cascadilla Street –
Resolution
By Commissioner Leccese: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, Susan Eschback, property owner, seeks an agreement for a minor
encroachment for her residence located at 314 Cascadilla Street (Tax Map Parcel No.
45.-6-5), in the City of Ithaca due to a corner of her residence being located within the
City’s right of way; and
WHEREAS, the encroachment would consist of the following:
A northwest corner of the building’s northerly projections, measuring
approximately 5 inches by 10 inches, entering the City’s right way, as
shown on a survey by T.G. Miller, P.E., dated June 4, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the encroachment, which does not exceed 40 square feet, is a minor
encroachment as defined in Chapter 170 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the building encroachment does not interfere with the City’s
airspace or the sidewalks as currently constituted; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent does not anticipate any conflicts in the near future with
public works uses or needs, due to the existing encroachments at this location; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the Mayor, upon
consultation with the Superintendent and the City Attorney, to sign a revocable
encroachment license agreement for the minor encroachment into the City’s right of way
at 314 Cascadilla Street, containing the usual terms and conditions; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the encroachment agreement shall not be subject to a fee at this
time, per Chapter 170 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, which provides that the
application and annual use fees shall be waived for a minor encroachment.
Carried Unanimously
HIGHWAYS, STREETS AND SIDEWALKS:
Award of Bid for East State Street and Mitchell Street Traffic Signals and
Roadway Improvements – Resolution
By Commissioner Acharya: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
WHEREAS, bids were received on July 8, 2013 for the East State/MLK Jr. Street and
Mitchell Street Traffic Signal and Roadway Improvements, CP 775, and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the two bids received and made a recommendation for
award, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby awards the contract
for the East State/MLK Jr. Street and Mitchell Street Traffic Signal and Roadway
Improvements to Binghamton Road Electric, LLC, 170 East Service Road, Binghamton,
New York for their low bid meeting specifications of $342,677.27.
Carried Unanimously
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
6
CREEKS, BRIDGES AND PARKS:
Award of Contract for Ithaca Falls Overlook ERP Project, Interim Remedial
Measure-1 – Capital Project 768 – Resolution
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, bids were received on July 3, 2013 for Ithaca Falls Overlook ERP Project,
Interim Remedial Measure-1, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council established Capital Project 768 for the Falls Overlook
Investigation/Remediation, and
WHEREAS, TREC Environmental, Inc., 1018 Washington Street, Spencerport, NY
14559 submitted the lowest responsible bid for General Construction work of
$232,560.00 now therefore, be it,
RESOLVED, That the contract for General Construction work for the Ithaca Falls
Overlook ERP Project, Interim Remedial Measure-1 is awarded to TREC
Environmental, Inc., 1018 Washington Street, Spencerport, NY 14559 for the lowest
responsible bid for General Construction work of $ $232,560.00, and be it further,
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute this contract, and
that the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to administer the
same in consultation with Barton & Loguidice, the City’s consulting engineer on the
project.
Carried Unanimously
WATER AND SEWER:
Amendment to the Plumbing Permit Fees in Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca
Chapter 146-30 – Resolution
By Commissioner Morache: Seconded by Commissioner Darling
WHEREAS, Plumbing Permit Fees are a necessary and reasonable cost to the public
for the local administration and enforcement of public health and sanitation laws
required by State regulations, and
WHEREAS, it is a necessary function of government to assess public service activities
from time to time to determine the actual cost to the community and to establish
reasonable fees for the proper discharge of said public services, and
WHEREAS, the current Plumbing Permit Fee structure for the City of Ithaca is
significantly lower than the surrounding area, owing mostly to the fact that these fees
have not been changed in over 40 years, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have a more actuate cost sharing of plumbing review and
inspection services in the form of Plumbing Permit Fees for end users who are the
primary recipient of those services than to rely on rate payer revenues, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That Chapter 146, Building Code Enforcement, Article 4, Plumbing,
Section 146-30 Permits, C. Fees shall be amended by adding enumeration (1) as
follows:
(1) City of Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule
New construction
Single Family Residences: $25 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Multiple Residences 2-10 units: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
Multiple Residences 11-20 units: $250 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Multiple Residences 21 units or more: $500 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Commercial or Other Plumbing work under $25,000: $100 application fee plus $10
per fixture.
Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $25,000 to $100,000: $250 application
fee plus $10 per fixture.
Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $100,000 to $500,000: $500
application fee plus $10 per fixture.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
7
Commercial or Other Plumbing work over $500,000: $750 application fee plus $10
per fixture.
Renovations and Additions:
Single Family Residences: $25 application fee plus $5 per fixture
Multiple Residences: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
Commercial or Other Plumbing work: $100 application fee plus $10 per fixture.
Partial Service Users
All permit fees for work conducted on premises not connected both to City water and
City sewer service or not anticipated to be connected to both City water and City sewer
service once connected to any water or sewer service shall be based on the City of
Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule for Commercial or Other Plumbing work plus 15
percent of the total therein specified.
______________________________________
Legislative Intent
The revenues collected by the City through the regular issuances of water and sewer
bills establish the budget and spending allowances of the Water and Sewer Division.
The office of the Plumbing Inspector is an expenditure within that Division. Although
plumbing permit fees do contribute to the Water and Sewer revenues, 95% of the
expenditures required for plumbing services are now covered by rate payer revenues. It
is the intension of this legislation to shift more of that cost onto the primary user of the
service, specifically, the permit holder in the form of plumbing permit fees that more
accurately reflect the actual cost to the City to provide plumbing review, inspection and
enforcement.
This proposed Plumbing Permit Fee structure will bring our rates in line with the rates of
other jurisdictions in our area while providing a more equitable cost sharing solution
between the rate payers and permit holders. A planned “phase-in” of all rates seems
impractical and counterproductive due to the historically low existing rates.
Sliding Scale.
The fee schedule keeps the Single Family Residential permits at a reasonable cost at
somewhere in the $30-$40 range for most work while providing a "sliding scale" for all
other types of construction. The increases in the fees are proportional to the amount of
review that is associated with more complicated or compound plumbing construction
(multiple types, high rises, mixed uses). The issues that necessitate a higher degree of
plan review such as: fire flows, large meter sizing, valve placements, equipment
locations, backflow requirements, grease trap sizing, utility service sizing and entrance
coordination, storm water regulations, sanitary discharge requirements and others,
qualify the higher fees.
Within the "sliding scale" fees there are two general categories of Multiple Residence
and Commercial. In the Multiple Residence fees, the application cost increase with the
number of units and reflects the increased administrative effort needed to approve plans
and specifications, coordinate with department personnel and resources, and to execute
the requirements for issuing the permit. The fixture fees are universal for multiple
residence applications and represent the costs associated with inspections and the
administration of the actual construction phase.
Commercial and Other
The Commercial or Other (Academic, Industrial, etc) application fees are similar to the
Multiple Residences fees accept that, instead of units, the fee is based on the dollar
value of the plumbing work (Actual Total of Labor and Material). Our Building
Department uses a similar method of total construction cost to determine the Building
Permit fee. The actual formulas may vary but the concept and premise are the same.
The dollar value is used to represent the amount of plumbing work or equipment being
installed. The greater the dollar value, the greater the administrative review. Fixture fees
are higher but universal within the category and represent the costs associated with
inspections and the administration of the actual construction phase. The higher fixture
costs associated with commercial plumbing equipment is justified in that there can be
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
8
found in these types of fixtures more specialized and unique installation requirements
than standard household plumbing. Here the gamut extends beyond bathrooms and
kitchens to plumbing items designed for other Industries. Examples are: cooling towers
and chillers, steam and hot water boilers, commercial dishwashers, chemical rinse
dispensers, sterilizers, surgery tables, dental aspirator, medical vacuum/water systems,
fume hoods, lab sinks, wok stoves, landscape irrigation systems, grease and sediment
interceptors, sewage ejectors, water filtration systems, make-up water for fan/coil
systems, etc... Commercial plumbing fixtures will therefore require more effort and
knowledge of code and manufacturers requirements than fixtures associated with
Multiple Residences.
Plumbing Permit Fees for partial service users within the City of Ithaca
Water and Sewer revenues make up the largest funding source for plumbing inspection
services. This revenue stream is generated by quarterly billings for water usage
(metered water) and sewer charges based on water consumption. However, not all
properties within the City take both water and sewer from the City. These customers are
identified herein as “partial” service users since the City bills them for water only or for
sewer only and, as such, they contribute less to the Water and Sewer revenue budget
for similar service.
This proposal adds a “cost recovery” fee for properties identified as partial service users
of 15% added to the total cost of the Plumbing Permit. It is intended to help defray costs
that full rate payers subsidize now and create a more equitable end user fee that more
accurately reflects the true costs of providing plumbing review and inspection services
for each user type.
Cost Justification
The old black leather-bound ledger found in the Vault at the Water and Sewer Division
held the historical record of plumbing permits issued in the City of Ithaca. The first entry,
dated October 31, 1973 was issued to a plumbing contractor by the name of Albanese.
The permit was for a new house to be built at 253 Westwood Knoll and included the
installation of 14 plumbing fixtures at $1 per fixture and an application fee of $5 as a
single family residence…total $19. If Mr. Albanese were to apply today for the same
permit (40 years later) it would be issued at the cost of…$19! Let this be submitted as
cost justification #1.
A cost comparison of Plumbing permit Fees among other jurisdictions in our area was
done in 2012 and reported in an e-mail to the Superintendent of Public Works and to the
Assistant Superintendent, Water and Sewer Division attached. The proposed fee
structure is well within the ranges being charged in areas such as: Cortland, Elmira,
Auburn, and the Bolton Point Water Authority (Town of Ithaca, Lansing, Dryden….)
The actual cost vs. revenues for the City is represented in the bar chart below. The
proposed fees will not exceed the cost of supply plumbing inspection services. It is
evident that water and sewer rate payers will continue to be the major funding source
for plumbing services even after shifting more of the costs to the permit holders.
2012 Plumbing Permits:
Actual Plumbing Permit Fees
collected in 2012
$5,138.00
Proposed Plumbing Permit
Fees
$36,135.00
$110,000
100,000
90,000
(Plumbing Inspection Expenditures)
Salary 80,000
Overhead (200-400 accounts)
Inspection Services Contract 70,000
Staff assistance
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
9
60,000
Plumbing Permit Fees Collected in
2012
50,000
Proposed Plumbing Permit
Fees
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
An analysis of 2012 Plumbing Permits for the City of Ithaca shows:
Number of permits………………………117
Total revenue from permits….…..…$5,136
Expenditures:
Inspector’s salary……………………$64,493
Salary overhead (40%)………………$25,797
Contractual services…………………$12,000
Office overhead and staff support..…....$8000
Total budgeted expenditures…...($110,290)
Revenues from Proposed Fees………………$36,135
Plumbing Inspector Albanese joined the Board for discussion of this item. He explained
that this proposal has undergone a couple of re-writes, one being the addition of
“renovations/additions” to the list of work/inspections. He stated that the City Attorney
offered several alternative writings for how the legislation should be written. He
explained that when he was working on updating the legislation and surveying other
municipalities he found a lot of areas where premises are either not connected to the
City’s water services or to the City’s sewer services. For example Cayuga Heights
provides sewer services; however Bolton Point provides their water services. He wrote
this legislation to include premises not connected to city water and/or city sewer
services. The purpose of that was that 95% of the budget for plumbing inspection
services comes from water bills, it would improve the budget is the budget for plumbing
inspection services were from permit fees. Staff reviewed who the end users were, and
determined that not all of them contribute equally to the city’s water and sewer funds.
Therefore, they are proposing a fee structure that would provide cost-recovery for that.
The City Attorney has advised that they write the cost justification to make sure
proposed fees do not exceed the actual cost of providing the services.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the proposed increases in fees, the proposed
fees for properties not connected to city water or city sewer services period, properties
not connected to any service, or properties not anticipated to be connected to city water
and/or city sewer once construction is completed. Further discussion followed on the
floor regarding proposed new fees not covering costs and why aren’t they proposing to
increase them to cover costs.
Acting/Acting Supt. Gray noted that this proposal is a fairly significant rate change and
may tell where City rates should belong. He noted that things break, and systems that
are up and running do require inspections occasionally. He feels that it would be good
to review rates each year to ensure that fees are close to or meeting actual costs
associated with the plumbing inspector’s work.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
10
Amending Resolution
By Commissioner Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner Acharya
RESOLVED, That the proposed fee for inspection for a new construction single family
homes be $50.00, and the fee for inspection of renovations to a single family home be
$25.00.
Director of Engineering West stated that this proposal looks at the breakdown of efforts
relative to permit inspections and processing versus other community programs. He
further stated that when staff works on the 2014 budget they will review permit fees to
make sure they reflect permit activity costs accurately.
Plumbing Inspector Albanese stated that the vast majority of the cost for his job is within
this rate structure - 25% general work done on a regular basis i.e. work with the public,
consulting work, bid work, e-mail, and 75% of his work is directly related to various jobs
that include plan review, enforcement, and actual permit inspections.
Mayor Myrick noted that as part of the recommendations from the Novak Report,
Common Council has requested that staff review all fee structures for the City of Ithaca
as a way of possibly increasing revenue for the City, as in some cases fees have not
increased in decades and therefore, do not come close to the actual costs involved with
the item. He is comfortable with the proposed amendment, and knowing that staff will be
reviewing fee structures regularly in the future. He also noted, that at this point, the
review of city fee structures has not commenced; however, he is hoping that it will begin
very soon.
A Vote on the Amending Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Main Motion as Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended Resulted As Follows:
Carried Unanimously
The Board extended their thanks to Plumbing Inspector Albanese for taking the initiative
to review fees and for making the recommendations above.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Proposal for Sixty Foot Dam – Dam Stability Analysis:
Rick Gell, from O’Brien & Gere, joined the Board for discussion of this item.
Mr. Gell provided background information to the Board on the proposed project. He
explained that the City received a letter in December 2012 from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that identified several gaps in the
dam’s engineering assessment that had been submitted to their office.
O’Brien & Gere has prepared a proposal and submitted it to the City that addresses
ways to fill those gaps and also integrate in any future improvements to bring the 60'
dam into compliance. The proposal is to perform the work in conjunction with the
construction of the new water plant. That way the gaps are addressed, the City
complies with necessary requirements for all its programs and meets the requirements
from the dam safety board.
Acting/Acting Supt. Gray explained that the City was headed down two roads at the
same time - the re-build of the water plant, and the other to meet and comply with DEC
requirements for the 60’ dam – with two different engineering firms. It became obvious
that significant work on the 60’ dam would be needed and work would be needed on the
dam in conjunction with the re-build of the City’s water plant so it made sense to go with
one engineering firm to do both. That way the work could be combined into one project,
and one contract for both projects. He stated that staff does have some questions and
it's reasonable to expect the back and forth that the engineering report will have with the
DEC regarding issues for work at the dam which will include drilling down through the
dam and installing tension wires that secure the dam to the rock beneath it.
Mayor Myrick questioned whether the cost for the analysis of the dam was included in
the capital project budget for the construction of the new water plant?
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
11
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded that part of this project had been budgeted into the
water plant rebuild project. In addition, a similar project will be required for 30' dam,
which is not part of the water plant rebuild project.
Acting/Acting Supt. Gray stated that the funds for the 60’ dam project will come from the
contingency line built into the capital project budget for rebuild of water plant.
Mayor Myrick questioned whether the cost for the 60’ dam analysis was known at this
time, and Mr. Gell responded that it would be approximately $27,000.00.
Director of Engineer West questioned whether, based on this initial analysis for the 60’
dam, whether there is a potential for additional work to be required on it? Mr. Gell
responded that the City knew that the DEC would require the installation of a low level
outlet, and had budgeted accordingly for it. However, the installation of anchors and
need for stability had not been built into the cost for the water plant project.
Mr. Gell further explained that the City won't know until the study/analysis is complete
what other work maybe required nor the cost – which would include investigation costs
as well as possible remediation costs.
Director of Engineering West questioned whether the analysis was included as part of
contingency line budget? Acting/Acting Supt. Gray responded that at the moment staff
is hoping that this project won't be so big that it rises over the contingency budget line.
He noted that bid prices rose significantly in the last six months, and contractors are
busy so it is important to move forward with the work now, before costs rise further.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding costs for the analysis, the different types of
analysis that could be needed, costs for the work, what type of work might be required
and the fact that the 60’ dam will need to be operational while work is being done.
Mayor Myrick questioned why this work wasn’t foreseen as the details of the work and
requirements for the water plant rebuild capital project was being determined and
established. Acting/Acting Supt. Gray responded staff knew there was the potential for
the analysis and work to be required at some point in the future. However the City did
provide information about the dams to the DEC around twenty years ago, and they were
either satisfied with what was provided or it got dropped. Requirements change over the
years, and now the DEC is requesting that the work and analysis be done – as a result
of the time lapse this work was not included in the water plant rebuild capital project.
Now that the City is aware of the requirement, staff would like to combine the work of
the two projects under one engineering contract and complete the necessary work.
A brief discussion followed on the floor regarding the need to complete the work on the
dam, the timing of the projects, and since the work would be required at some point in
the future that the City will most likely end up saving money by doing it now than if it had
to do the work five years from now. The Board supports the request and asked that a
resolution be prepared for the July 22, 2013 agenda.
Request for Encroachment Agreements for 605 West State Street:
A brief discussion followed on the floor regarding the request and the small size of the
encroachment. The Board supports the request and asked that a resolution be
prepared for the agenda for their consideration at the July 22, 2013 meeting.
APPEAL OF WATER BILLS FOR:
202 Elmwood Avenue:
Asst. Supt. will have staff talk with Carol Howard in the City Chamberlain’s office
regarding her conversation with appellant to get clear, correct information about the
situation and bring this item back to the Board for the July 22, 2013 agenda for
discussion.
719 North Aurora Street:
The Board supported the denial of the appeal, and requested that the City Chamberlain
work with the property owner to develop a payment plan, and that no late fees or
interest be charged on the bill. A resolution will be prepared for the agenda for the
Board’s July 22, 2013 meeting.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
12
Friends of Stewart Park Report and Update:
Mr. Rick Manning joined the Board to provide an update from the Friends of Stewart
Park on the following items:
CFA Grant Submission:
Mr. Manning explained that there is an opportunity to apply for a grant for Stewart Park
for the boat house stairs (one was written last year for them as well). They are willing to
write another one, but don't want to compete with the City if it's applying for one as well.
Mayor Myrick responded that the Friends of Stewart Park should go ahead and apply
for the grant, and the State will sort things out and come to the regional economic
development council, which he is on for recommendations as to who should get the
grant. There is also the chance that they might not be in conflict. The Board and Mayor
supported Mr. Manning submitting a grant application for building repairs at Stewart
Park.
Food Truck Roundups in Stewart Park:
Mr. Manning reported that Jes Seaver has proposed September 14th, as a possible date
for this event at the park, and she needs the Board’s approval to proceed.
A brief discussion followed on the floor regarding this type of use at Stewart Park, which
is different than the food truck round-up at Thompson Park (which they obtained by
application for a parking/street permit). The Board determined that the request should
be taken to the Parks Commission for their consideration and recommendation back to
the Board.
Standup Paddleboard Rentals in Stewart Park:
Mr. Manning explained the proposal for the owner of Paddle-N-More which operates
from Myers Park in Lansing to rent out paddleboats and provide instruction on their use.
Friends of Stewart Park would like the owner to begin teaching and renting
paddleboards in Stewart Park near the boathouse, with paddling in Fall Creek.
Mayor Myrick asked for clarification that the request is to operate a for profit business
from the boathouse on Fall Creek – Mr. Manning confirmed that. Mayor Myrick thought
the use might be similar to the dragon boats of the docks and so would need the City
Attorney’s Office to research to make sure that it would be able to issue a basic license
for the use of city land. The owner should contact the attorney’s office to see what, if
any, logistics need to be addressed. In addition, Mr. Manning stated that he would
request that this item be placed on the July 9, 2013 Parks Commission agenda for
discussion and approval as well.
Acting/Acting Supt. Gray noted that it seems the City is starting to take Stewart Park, as
he knew it, in a different direction. He stated that formerly Stewart Park was where you
took a picnic dinner and there was no solicitation, and no commercialization. The more
active park in his mind was Cass Park with the ball fields, concessions/food trucks. This
use of Stewart Park may be fine depending on what the Board wants to do - as well as
turning it into a film museum at Stewart Park. Maybe some of these things go with that
type of use. He thinks that the Board of Public Works and the Parks Commission should
think about that and provide Mr. Manning feed back for Friends of Stewart Park. To him,
it just feels like the City may be taking a city asset in a different direction than in the
past, and he just requests that it please be done with conscious thought as to the future
impacts those uses might have the park.
Commissioner Acharya suggested that the Board might want to discuss a mini strategic
plan for the future use of Stewart Park, in conjunction with the Parks Commission.
Commissioner Darling stated that the Parks Commission should discuss whether these
types of use are appropriate at all city parks.
Mr. Manning reported that the Parks Commission is updating the policy for use of city
parks, so now would be a good opportunity to bring these issues to them for inclusion in
that discussion. Commissioner Leccese is the Board’s liaison to the Parks Commission,
perhaps between the two of them the suggestion could be made to create sort of a
client committee as plans move forward for the expansion of the types of uses permitted
at city parks.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
13
Mayor Myrick noted that the points made about the use of city parks are important.
There are assets of the city, and it does seem as though Stewart Park is shifting from a
passive use to a more active type of use – i.e. fire works, special events, it is a place
that draws and attracts people to the City, which is important for the community as a
whole.
Acting/Acting Supt. Gray noted that Stewart Park originally was going to be the
destination for the trolley system, it was going to be a "boardwalk" and busy location if
that occurred. It may be perfectly reasonable to step up activities at the park with the
potential to change and grow, as long as it is done in a thoughtful and deliberate way
that ensures its continued attractiveness to the public as a amenity of the City of Ithaca.
City Attorney Lavine stated that the attorney's office will do research on different uses of
the park and what licenses/agreements may be needed for different events.
Application for Mobile Vending from Ollie’s Ice Cream:
Commissioner Darling reported that Leadership Tompkins will be providing a proposal
to the Board regarding mobile vending in the City of Ithaca soon. In the meantime, since
there is no policy, the Board did not support the request for Stewart Park; however, they
did support the request for Cass Park. If vendor is agreeable to Cass Park, staff can
handle request administratively.
Appeal of Sidewalk Repair Requirement for 116 Kelvin Place:
Mayor Myrick explained to the property owner who was at the meeting that if the
proposed local law for sidewalks is adopted by Common Council, then sidewalks at 116
Kelvin Place would subsequently be handled by the City. Given that work not scheduled
it would make sense to keep it off the current work list - delay a decision on the appeal
until a decision has been made on local law. It was noted that 116 Kelvin Place is not on
this years’ work plan and probably would not be added. Owner okay with delaying,
knowing their deadline to do the work would go away depending on the outcome of the
vote on Local Law. If the Local Law is voted down, then the clock would re-start at that
time for the owners to complete the required sidewalk repairs. In the meantime, the
owner will spray paint the sidewalks; there are flags there already to alert pedestrians to
safety concerns. The owners very concerned about safety for pedestrians.
Sidewalk Policy Proposal:
Mayor Myrick explained that the proposal is to make the cost for sidewalks more
equitable by adopting a local law that would amend the City Charter to change the
responsibility for maintenance and repairs of sidewalks from the property owner to the
City of Ithaca, through the creation and use of a assessment district.
City Attorney Lavine explained that the sidewalk policy task force was very excited to
have an opportunity to change a broken system of sidewalk maintenance and financing.
The task force began meeting four months ago, and developed the following list of goals
and objectives for any proposed sidewalk system to satisfy and:
1. Reduce regressivity of current system, prioritize by usage of sidewalk with the value
for higher use areas more than in lower use areas, based on frontage of sidewalk,
2. Continued inclusion of tax-exempt entities in program. Tax exempt entities should
continue to be responsible for the cost of sidewalk maintenance and repair,
3. Provision of consistent, predictable sidewalk costs for property owners which will
avoid large, unexpected bills for sidewalk repair.
4. New construction will be required to provide sidewalks through the site plan review
process.
The proposal is to create five sidewalk improvements districts within the City of Ithaca.
He explained that both he and the task force members are very interested in feedback
from the public regarding the proposed delineation of each district. Each district would
raise a total assessment levy each year according to a established formula. That levy
would then be spent in that year for sidewalk maintenance. The money raised in district
one goes back into district one for sidewalk repair and maintenance and so on. The
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
14
benefits - means that in successive years a given community could come to the Board
of Public Works or Common Council and say they want more or less sidewalk work and
provide input and could adjust that district’s assessment up or down and do more or
less work as necessary. This new process will allow for more participation by the public
in budget process, which will be a good thing.
He explained the proposed formula will be a flat fee $70 for 1 and 2 family homes, as
defined by the Tompkins County Assessment Office. There will not be any distinction
between rental and owner occupied properties. All other properties would pay a base
fee of $140 plus square foot and frontage fee. The frontage fee is pretty self-explanatory
- $30 for each 50'.
Further, with the formula the task force worked hard to include a retroactivity credit - to
account for property owners who have done sidewalk repairs recently at their own cost.
They would be given a 20 year credit (the task force needs input from the BPW as to
whether 20 years is appropriate). So, anyone who spent money in the last 20 years on
their sidewalk should get that credit; if 10 years have already occurred, they would get
10 year credit and if second 10 year in process then 20 year credit. That credit would be
1/20 of what they spent on the sidewalk work.
The huge benefit is that property owners no longer have to pay for the sidewalk on their
property and all the related concerns - they simply pay a yearly assessment to the City,
and in return the City will take over the repair and maintenance of sidewalks for the
property owner.
The total City wide levy is estimated at $600,000 per year which would fully replicate all
work done by city crews and private contractors doing sidewalk work in the City
currently - maybe even be a little more. The sidewalk curb cut is included in the
assessment; driveway cuts/aprons are not. In addition, all sidewalks associated with
new development and going through site plan review would be the owner’s
responsibility.
Any properties not subject to the proposed program would fall under existing code.
Those properties are mostly in the U1 zone which is predominantly Cornell University
owned property. The theory being that the owner does good job there already taking
care of sidewalks and it would not benefit the City to take over the responsibility for
those sidewalks.
Annual budget process vision: In the late winter or early spring of any given year the
Board of Public Works would receive public comments and begin to craft with the
department of Public Works a proposed budget (i.e. $600,000) for the following year
and schedule the work which would help the Mayor and Common Council with the
budget as they finalize it in the Fall.
Commissioner Acharya noted that this is something that he is extremely proud that City
can present. Because the assessments will be kept separate from general fund means
that there has to be sidewalk work done each year. This is an example of a one of a
kind in terms of having a dedicated assessment like this in place for the City of Ithaca
and New York State - pretty exciting!
City Attorney Lavine noted that it is a first for a city in New York State to establish a
benefit assessment district for sidewalk maintenance. He noted that towns in New York
State have done similar benefit assessment districts, but not cities. He is also very
pleased to hear from former Supt of Public Works Gray giving the proposal thumbs up.
Transportation Engineer Logue noted that there may be some implications for public
works as far as staffing and work loads, etc. but he is confident that City can do at least
the same, if not more, with the new proposed benefit districts in place for funding
sidewalk work.
Mayor Myrick noted that a full presentation of the proposal will be given to Common
Council on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., it will then go to the GPA Committee
in August, and then to Common Council in September if all goes as planned. He stated
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
15
that the Board of Public Works can make a recommendation to Common Council as to
whether or not to adopt this proposed local law.
Transportation Engineer Logue further noted that all the exact administrative details
need to be worked out but cannot until the proposal is officially approved.
Commissioner Morache extended his congratulations to the members of the task force,
and noted that he was very pleased to read the proposal which is very ground breaking
and a great job! He noted that the new process would help free up the Board's time
with appeals and planning work, which will make better use of the its time. What if one
district wants more work done than another can they pay a different rate. He also likes
the democratic process so people can choose to do more work if they want and have a
voice in that process.
Commissioner Jenkins extended her appreciation and thanks to the task force
members, noting that this new policy is a page turner, and will make this process so
much smoother for everyone.
City Attorney Lavine explained that the program will be administered by Tompkins
County Department of Assessment through yearly taxes (similar to the current solid
waste fees incorporated into property taxes, etc.). He did clarify that it’s not a tax in the
legal sense but will be processed similarly.
Commissioner Darling questioned whether the City could apply for grants for the work
and use the assessments as the “matching funds” that are sometimes required?
City Attorney Lavine responded that whether these funds can be used as "matching"
funds is a great question, but needs an answer, so he will have his office research it.
Commissioner Acharya questioned whether the City could bond for the work, and City
Attorney Lavine responded that each district could bond but would be required to do
work in a certain area for the bond rather than using funds from a grant where it
needed. It was noted that Common Council would need a resolution to approve the use
of bonds to pay for sidewalk work.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding liability concerns and whether the City would
be 100% liable – except for snow removal should someone be injured on a sidewalk.
City Attorney Lavine responded that the City only takes on the responsibility, under
State law, if it has received a notice of defect for a particular sidewalk. Preliminary
research has shown that should not change with the proposed new sidewalk policy.
Liability to City not triggered until prior notice received. Home owner is responsible as
well.
Mayor Myrick questioned whether property owners could still pay to do own their own
sidewalk work and then receive the 20 year credit? City Attorney Lavine responded that
the current proposal is not written that way, but could be amended to include that option
if the Board so chooses. It was noted that there would be no incentive, based on current
formula, for a property owner to choose to do the work themselves because it would
cost them so much more than letting the City do the work. The proposed credit back
would not equal the actual cost of the work for the property owner.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated that the Disability Advisory Council (DAC) didn't get a
chance to review the proposed new sidewalk policy prior to today. He stated that they
would discuss it at their August meeting and provide their opinion about this approach.
He stated that the policy should be clear to property owners, and they should
understand the importance of having all sidewalks in the City in good repair and
accessible to everyone. He noted that under the current system it has not been clear to
property owners what the process is and how they should go about obtaining a permit to
repair their sidewalks. At this point, he tends, in a guarded way, to feel that this is a
good solution, and seems like a process that will accomplish what hasn’t been able to
be done in the past which is to construct and maintain in good condition sidewalks
throughout the City. This is a good idea and he looks forward to having the DAC
express an opinion. He would ask, since it tends to be a problem, what about the
existence of slate sidewalks throughout the City and what is proposed for the repair and
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
16
maintenance of those types of sidewalks. In addition, he would like to discuss what it
means to have driveway aprons excluded from the benefit districts?
City Attorney Lavine responded that, in general terms, aspects like driveway cuts and
improvements have not been included in proposed districts because they will still be the
property owner’s responsibility; or, the City can repair at owner's expense. He further
noted that the DAC as well as other advisory boards/committees, and the public will
certainly be able to weigh in between July 17 and September 4, 2013 on whether or not
they support the proposals and what additions/deletions/suggestions they might have
for the policy. The City is looking for lots of input from everyone. The Government
Performance and Accountability Committee will discuss the policy at their meeting
which is scheduled for Monday, August 12, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. The schedule for the
legislation would be for Common Council to approve the legislation at their September
meeting, and then it can be placed on the ballot for the November general election for
the public to vote on – which is required by law when a change like this is proposed for
the City of Ithaca Charter legislation. The Board of Public Works will also be discussing
the proposed policy at their meeting on July 22nd. There would be opportunity for public
input at that meeting as well.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated that one of the reasons that the City’s snow and ice
removal policy is effective is because Common Council and the Board of Public Works
came to understand that it is not about property maintenance but about accessibility for
everyone. Is there a way in the policy to state that the maintenance of sidewalk
infrastructure is essential to the accessibility of the City for everyone? He noted that the
reason a lot of people don't go out or don't go downtown or they go in the street is
because they can't use sidewalk or the sidewalk is missing. So, if education of the
public about the importance of accessibility for everyone could also be included in the
policy it would be helpful.
Mayor Myrick responded that accessibility is a very good point and should be included
in legislative intent of the law.
Commissioner Darling noted that the City will need to have a good communication plan
in place for this change. He stated that there are a lot of great student resources at both
Ithaca College and Cornell University that would see this public information outreach as
a great project. We need to think about how to communicate with the public and in an
ongoing way regarding the common good of sidewalks and access for everyone.
Mayor Myrick noted that some areas in the City have no sidewalks, and this policy helps
the City move towards changing that. He stated that even if you don't use the sidewalk
outside your house, you most likely use sidewalks in other areas of the City.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the City of Ithaca receiving assessments for
sidewalks that it owns and the need to have the Department of Public Works budget
accordingly for that. In addition, the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and Ithaca City
School District will receive assessments as well for sidewalks in their districts.
Commercial businesses will also receive and multi-unit properties will receive larger
assessments as well.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the areas where it will be more
difficult to construct sidewalks, areas where there are no sidewalks, and what approach
will be taken there to account for costs such as design and construction. It was also
discussed that areas with no sidewalks should be prioritized for work first and then
areas where there are only sidewalks on one side of the street should be focused on,
and the conscious, step-by-step approach that should be followed when developing the
work plans each year.
Mayor Myrick asked whether the Board of Public Works would be interested in passing
a resolution in support of the proposed new policy, and the Board is very interested in
doing that.
Commissioner Darling questioned whether the City would want to include information
about slate sidewalks in the new policy or treat them on a case-by-case basis?
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes July 8, 2013
17
City Attorney Lavine responded that the task force briefly discussed that issue, and
determined that it is a distinct issue from this - but separate. They decided it would not
be appropriate to include anything related to slate sidewalks in the local law. They are a
type of sidewalk and therefore could be paid for using sidewalk assessment funds.
In addition, the City would have to be very clear about requirements for slate sidewalks
if the property owner wants them.
Mayor Myrick reminded everyone of the special meeting of Common Council, which will
be held on July 17, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. where a detailed presentation and discussion of
the proposal will take place. He encouraged Board members to attend, if they’re able to.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Svante L. Myrick
Information Management Specialist Mayor