HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2012-03-05BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. March 5, 2012
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Commissioners (5) - Darling, Morache, Leccese, Goldsmith, Acharya
OTHERS PRESENT:
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin
Common Council Liaison – Fleming
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Transportation Engineer – Logue
EXCUSED:
Commissioner Jenkins
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Supt. Gray requested the addition of item 10.1 under New Business entitled “Resolution
Supporting a New York State Department of State Local Government Efficiency Grant
Application to Study the Feasibility of Shared Services of Tompkins County and Local
Roads for Cost Savings and Efficiency Measures”
No Board Member objected.
MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS:
The Mayor had no communications for the Board.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Albert Smith, City of Ithaca and owner of “The Hot Truck”, addressed the Board to
inform them of his interest in working with them to possibly relocate the hot truck closer
to the commercial areas in Collegetown.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC:
Mayor Myrick explained that he had heard from a lot of Cornell alumni who are very
concerned about the future of the hot truck. They would like the fee waived for use of
city land. He noted that where the hot truck is currently located is now completely
different than it was when the hot truck first opened. It seems like someplace closer to
the commercial area in Collegetown would be a better location for a hot truck. He would
like to have a discussion about moving this hot truck to Collegetown, and a discussion
regarding hot trucks in general.
Supt. Gray noted that staff had already collected some information from other cities
about how they regulate hot trucks; he has not had a chance to review it.
Commissioner Goldsmith noted that there would be opposition from property
owners/businesses in Collegetown if the hot truck was moved there, as well as having
hot trucks in general located in the commercial area of Collegetown. He stated that the
Board would need to discuss the topic further, send thoughts or recommendations of
changes to mobile vending as it relates to hot trucks in general throughout the City to
Planning Department staff and boards, as well as eventually make a recommendation to
Common Council on a general policy for the City to regulate hot trucks.
Commissioner Acharya likes the idea of allowing hot trucks in the city. He would like to
see information from other cities and copy, where applicable, their policies and
procedures, so the city does not need to reinvent the wheel to develop its own policies.
Mayor Myrick would like this topic placed on the Board’s agenda soon, and requested
that staff invite Mr. Smith to that meeting as well.
2
March 5, 2012
Commissioner Leccese volunteered to review hot truck information and policies from
the American Planners Association to find additional guidelines. She will provide that
information for the Board’s meeting on March 12, 2012.
ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS:
Stewart Avenue Reconstruction Project Presentation:
Supt. Gray explained that City Engineer, Tom West, and the design team from Delta
Engineers presented the schematic drawings for the reconstruction of the Stewart
Avenue between State Street and University Avenue just prior to the Board's meeting
on February 13, 2012. He stated that the design team is interested in getting feedback
on the early design as they attempt to balance cost, design, and the historic nature of
the brick street. There will be public presentations this spring as staff and consultants
prepare to complete preliminary design and cost estimates in time to submit a capital
project proposal for consideration in the 2013 City Budget. He reported that one
interesting item that will be produced as part of the cost estimates will be a life cycle
cost comparison of brick and asphalt paving alternatives. He noted that the City
realizes that the brick paving will be more expensive in the first cost, but would like to
know how it compares over a longer period of time to the use of asphalt.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the proposed redesign with many Board
members expressing their approval/support for the use of asphalt at intersections. They
feel that the difference in road surfaces will make motorists more alert to upcoming
changes and thereby slow their speed as they meet the intersection. Further discussion
followed on the floor regarding whether any utility work would be done during the
reconstruction, traffic control upgrades planned, and the need to insure as much public
input as possible on the proposed redesign.
Award of Contract for Construction Materials Testing Services for the City of
Ithaca’s 2012 Construction Program – Various City Projects – Resolution
By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
WHEREAS, bids were received on February 24, 2012 for Construction Materials
Testing Services for The City of Ithaca’s 2012 Construction Program and,
WHEREAS, the 2012 Budget included project funding and capital funds for construction
for various City projects including but not limited to:
1. Capital Project # 710 - Salt Storage Building
2. Stewart Park Tea Pavilion
3. Sidewalk Program
4. Capital Project # 773 - Ithaca Road Reconstruction Project
5. Capital Project # 740 - Redesign Intersection at Route 13A, Route 79, and
Elm Street
6. Capital Project # 769 - Green and Seneca Street Chokers
7. Capital Project # 770 - Floral Avenue Trail
8. Capital Project # 765 - Traffic Signal upgrade Phase Two: Upgrade Five
Traffic Signs
WHEREAS, SJB Services, Inc., 60 Miller Street, Cortland, New York. 13045, submitted
a proposal for Construction Materials Testing Services not to exceed $29,613.00, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the contract for Construction Materials Testing Services for the City
of Ithaca’s 2012 Construction Program is hereby awarded to SJB Services, Inc., 60
Miller Street, Cortland, New York 13045 for their submitted low proposal of $29,613.00,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works is hereby authorized to enter into
and administer these contracts.
Carried Unanimously
3
March 5, 2012
Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 402 South Plain Street – Resolution
By Commissioner Acharya: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
WHEREAS, Chris & Johara Malcolm, owners of 402 South Plain Street, received a
2010 sidewalk assessment for sidewalk work completed adjacent to their property, and
WHEREAS, Chris & Johara Malcolm received sidewalk defect notices in 2007 and
2009, and
WHEREAS, Chris & Johara Malcolm filed an appeal via email on 7/28/10 asking to
remove the 25% surcharge and another written appeal on 4/1/11 asking for the full
assessment to be waived or the sidewalk to be completely replaced, and
WHEREAS, staff visited the site and determined that premature surface deterioration
had occurred, likely due to defective concrete, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes that City forces completed the sidewalk
replacement work but the quality of the concrete used failed to meet City specifications,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That each protest reason was considered as shown in the Sidewalk
Assessment Protest Summary for this address, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board hereby expunges the sidewalk assessment due to the
defective concrete and reminds the owners that they carry liability for sidewalk and need
to monitor sidewalk condition and replace it when necessary as required by the City
Code.
Carried Unanimously
Appeal of Sidewalk Assessment for 511 West Clinton Street – Resolution
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Leccese
WHEREAS, John W. & Victoria Folsom, owners of 511 West Clinton Street, received a
2010 sidewalk assessment for sidewalk work completed adjacent to their property, and
WHEREAS, John W. & Victoria Folsom received sidewalk defect notices in 2008 and
2009, and
WHEREAS, John W. & Victoria Folsom filed an appeal 9/19/11 asking for the full
assessment to be waived or the sidewalk to be completely replaced, and
WHEREAS, staff visited the site and determined that premature surface deterioration
had occurred, likely due to defective concrete, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes that City forces completed the sidewalk
replacement work but the quality of the concrete used failed to meet City specifications,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That each protest reason was considered as shown in the Sidewalk
Assessment Protest Summary for this address, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board hereby expunges the sidewalk assessment due to the
defective concrete and reminds the owners that they carry liability for sidewalk and need
to monitor sidewalk condition and replace it when necessary as required by the City
Code.
Carried Unanimously
4
March 5, 2012
Request to Amend Capital Projects #725 (Replacement of the East Clinton Street
Bridge Project), #726 (Prospect Street Reconstruction), #618 (Prospect Street
Sanitary Sewer Improvement), and #518 (Prospect Street Water Main
Improvement)
By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Darling
WHEREAS, a Project for Prospect Street Reconstruction and Replacement of the East
Clinton Street Bridge Project P.I.N. 375457 (“the Project”) is eligible for funding under
Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs to be
borne at the ratio of 80% federal funds and 20% non-federal funds, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council authorized the City of Ithaca to pay in the first
instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of Scoping, Preliminary
Design, Detailed Design, and Right-of-Way Incidentals work for the Project or portions
thereof, and
WHEREAS, the sum of $494,000 has been appropriated (Capital Project # 725,
$280,000, and Capital Project # 726, $214,000) and were available to cover the cost of
participation in the above phase of the Project, and
WHEREAS, bids were received for Prospect Street Reconstruction and Replacement of
the East Clinton Street Bridge Project on February 13, 2012, and
WHEREAS, FAHS Construction Group submitted the low bid for Prospect Street
Reconstruction and Replacement of the East Clinton Street Bridge Project in the
amount of $3,512,333.00, and
WHEREAS, the amended project budget is projected to be $5,280,000 and is
composed of:
• Preliminary Engineering and Detail Design Cost……………… $ 646,000
• ROW Incidental Cost...………………………………………………$ 28,000
• ROW Acquisition Cost……………………………………………… $ 140,000
• Construction Inspection and Construction Support Cost.……… $ 480,000
• Construction Cost....………………………………………………… $3,807,000
• Contingency and Short-Term Borrowing..………………………… $ 179,000
Total Project Cost…………………………$5,280,000
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works recommends that the Common
Council increase the total project budget authorizations for Prospect Street
Reconstruction and Replacement of the East Clinton Street Bridge Project in the
amount of $4,419,000, and
WHEREAS, the cost differences are outlines as follows:
Authorizatio
n
General
Fund
CP#725
General
Fund
CP# 726
Water
CP# 518
(Water
Fund)
Sewer
CP# 618
(Sewer Fund)
Total
Current $280,000 $214,000 $183,500 $183,500 $861,000
Proposed $2,070,000 $2,810,000 $212,000 $188,000 $5,280,000
Increase $1,790,000 $2,596,000 $28,500 $4,500 $4,419,000
now, therefore, be it
5
March 5, 2012
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council amends the Capital Project
budget authorizations for the Prospect Street Reconstruction and Replacement of the
East Clinton Street Bridge Project by the sum of $4,419,000 for a total project cost not
to exceed $5,280,000, with the 20% local share, currently estimated at $1,060,000, to
be shared as closely to a 15% /5% State/City split as is funded by New York State
under their Marchiselli Program, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to
execute and administer the contract, once the necessary funding is in place, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the funds necessary for the $4,419,000 amendment will be advanced
from the General Fund with later repayment from the issuance of Bonds.
Supt. Gray explained that staff developed a post-bid budget for the reconstruction
project which totals $5.28 million. The project is currently funded at $861,000 for the
initial design and bidding phases. He explained that staff is asking that the budget be
amended so they can award the bids and get started with construction. Common
Council approval is also needed to amend the project budget. He stated that staff is
requesting that the Board of Public Works forward that request in the form of the
resolution, which will be considered at the March 7, 2012 Common Council meeting. In
addition, New York State Department of Transportation will need to approve the bids
and grant permission to award the bid for construction because this project will receive
federal funds. The cost of the project will be split roughly 80% federal funds ($4 plus
million) and 20% local funds ($1 plus million). The local funds will be split between the
state and the city, with a 15% state and 5% city share split being the best that the City
can hope to achieve. The state has currently budgeted $192,000 in Marchiselli funds to
this project and indicated more will be appropriated. He further noted that staff are
hoping for their final share to approach $750,000, but would still recommend the project
to the city as a good deal.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the need to place the topic of plans for
detours while the bridge is being replaced on an agenda very soon. Board members
expressed concern about the detours that were in place two years ago when work was
done on the bridge that did not work well. They also asked whether traffic signals at the
tuning fork especially could be changed to allow for better traffic flow.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Proposed New Sidewalk in the First Block of Cornell Street, North of East
State/MLK Jr. Street:
Transportation Engineer Logue provided the Board with information as to the following
proposed new sidewalks:
The Department of Public Works is looking to install new sidewalk along the west side
of the first block of Cornell Street, just north of East State/Martin Luther King Jr. Street.
This sidewalk segment would fill a major gap in the sidewalk network between the East
State/MLK Jr. Street corridor and the neighborhood to the north, including the Belle
Sherman Elementary School. To accomplish this, new sidewalk and curbing are needed
at three properties:
• 1120 East State Street (tax parcel 111.-1-6), 118 lf ± of sidewalk
• A privately owned alley (tax parcel 111.-8-17), 26 lf ± of sidewalk
• 10 Cornell St. (tax parcel 111.-2-3), approx. 135 lf ± of sidewalk.
The BPW heard from concerned neighbors last fall (and in previous years) who
requested the sidewalk especially in the context of a safe route to school. Currently,
pedestrians must walk in the street, sometimes in the gutter. In addition to the sidewalk,
driveways, new curbing, two new curb ramps, and traffic signal loops will be needed as
well. Drainage improvements are being explored.
6
March 5, 2012
In order to construct these sidewalks, the City needs to follow the Uniform Sidewalk
Improvement process, which is spelled out in Sections 73 and 89 of the City Charter,
which were recently circulated with a request for new sidewalk on Hancock Street.
If the Board is interested in pursuing this new sidewalk, staff will call for a public hearing
through the required notifications. The public hearing for the Cornell St hearing can be
heard on the same day as the Hancock Street hearing, which was requested at the last
meeting. Staff do have a bit of an opportunity here insofar as NYSEG is looking to
replace a gas line in this block and staff is working with them to turn what would have
been their restoration costs into funding for some of this work.
Call for Public Hearing for Installation of New Sidewalks – Resolution
By Commissioner Morache: Seconded by Commissioner Leccese
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is considering having sidewalks installed in the
700 Block of Hancock Street and the first block of Cornell Street North of East State
Street/Martin Luther King Jr. Street as part of the city-wide program to install missing
sections of sidewalk; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby calls a public hearing for the
installation of sidewalks in the 700 Block of Hancock Street and the first block of Cornell
Street North of East State Street/Martin Luther King Jr. Street for their meeting on April
2, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED, That staff be directed to publicize this meeting as set forth in the City
Code.
Carried Unanimously
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
New Sidewalk Construction Priorities:
Transportation Engineer Logue addressed the Board to provide information on how the
City has approached the construction of new sidewalk in the past. He provided the
following update, from previous sidewalk sub-committee work, as follows:
The basic methodology was to first create a list of missing sidewalk segments, based
mostly on a city-wide survey of sidewalks conducted in 2000, and then to prioritize them
on a cost-benefit basis. Once sidewalk segments were prioritized, staff could then work
with greater confidence on implementation strategies. This effort in part came out of a
grant application process wherein the question was posed as to why pursue the
occasional grant opportunity on one desired new sidewalk instead of another one.
Whereas we might prefer to have sidewalks on both sides of every street, we agreed
that it was important to have a set of priorities to guide future efforts.
The sub-committee discussed many different ways to measure the benefits of new
sidewalks. The factors that they considered in their analysis included: traffic volumes,
number of households within a certain distance, links to destinations, whether the
segment would fill a gap, whether a footpath already existed, whether it was within a
certain distance of a school, whether it was in an underserved or low-income
neighborhood, neighborhood support or petitions, proximity to a bus stop, lack of a road
shoulder, number of driveways in the segment, whether it was on a school bus route,
and whether it was in a Census block with strong pedestrian journey to work rates. They
understood that not every factor could be included in analyzing the benefits of a new
sidewalk segment and that they had somewhat limited resources of staff time to devote
to this, so they decided to use the following factors to assess the benefits of a new
sidewalk segment: annual average daily traffic (AADT), whether a sidewalk exists on
the opposite side of the street, and the population density of the surrounding
neighborhood.
7
March 5, 2012
Annual average daily traffic numbers where either readily available from recent traffic
counts or fairly easy to estimate. If there was no sidewalk on either side, then the
benefit of building a sidewalk on one side would be double the benefit compared to
building a sidewalk where one already existed on the opposite side of the street.
For cost, we used a low, medium and high cost judgment. Low cost sidewalks assumed
simple construction and were assigned a $100/linear foot or $20/square foot cost. High
cost was based on recent cost estimates for complicated new sidewalk construction
wherein work items might include enclosing drainage systems, building retaining walls,
relocating utilities or significant earthwork. A high cost sidewalk was assigned a
$450/linear foot cost. Medium cost sidewalks were given an average cost of $275/linear
foot.
After ranking the sidewalk segments, they reviewed the prioritized list (including looking
at only the benefits regardless of cost to see if any segments seemed out of order for
any reason. They did reprioritize a few segments that didn’t rank based on the
benefit/cost ratio; reasons for such a reprioritization were based on factors such as ease
of implementation, or a known popular pedestrian way that didn’t have high traffic or
high surrounding density. They also decided to breakup the sidewalk segments into five
geographical areas: Downtown (the flats), West Hill, South Hill, and two areas on East
Hill.
The Board may want to forward this information to other groups in the City for further
input, for example, Common Council, the Planning & Development Board, the Disability
Advisory Council, and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council. Once the Board has
either concurred with their work or reprioritized it, he would like to reconstitute a
subcommittee and work on implementation strategies for the top 15 sidewalk segments
in the City (three in each district). The intent of this priority list should be to give staff
direction as to which sidewalk segments should be pursued by the Department of Public
Works, but it should not be to preclude other sidewalk segments from being built as
opportunities arise or as the Board may otherwise direct as per the City Code and City
Charter.
Possible Funding Sources for New Sidewalks
City's Capital Fund
City's Operating Fund
Property Owner Assessments
Transportation Enhancement Program (Federal-Aid)
Transportation Improvement Program (Federal-Aid)
Cornell/Community Transportation Investment Fund
NYS Multi-Modal Funding
Benefit Assessment District
Environmental Protection Fund (NYS)
Development/Site Plan Review
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Safe Routes to School (Federal-Aid)
Expanded City Street Paving project - e.g., Brandon Place in 2008
Sidewalk Sub-Committee Update
Sub-committee members: Robert Morache, William Goldsmith
Commissioner Morache provided the following update for the Board:
He explained that they examined the “Immediate Adjustment Plan” document (March
22, rev May 4, 2010) by City Engineer, Lynne Yost, which outlines recommendations of
the 2010 sidewalk sub-committee. They also met with Lynne and Asst. Supt. Benjamin
on Feb 29th, to discuss the scope of the sidewalk issue, the current process, and
limitations and difficulties in implementation. They hope to frame sidewalk program
options for the 2013 budget. Changes to the program may require action from Common
Council.
8
March 5, 2012
Scope:
There are 679 sidewalk segments with listed complaints, of which 255 have
received a sidewalk notice and 308 await inspection.
39 of these were injury related complaints, and all injury locations were repaired.
Between 35 and 40 locations that have received notices are repaired each year. Most of
these are repaired by the City, and about half protest the bill.
About 35 sidewalk permits are applied for each year, many not related to notices. DPW
does not know how many noticed sidewalks are privately replaced because many
owners simply perform minor repairs, and many do so without permits. Staff suspect 5
or 6 each year, indicating that each year about 45 sidewalks get replaced.
At the current rate of replacement, it will take 15 years to replace all the sidewalks
with listed complaints.
Extreme parameters:
In addition, of the approximately 4200 properties in the City, staff estimate that 3,400 of
them (80%) have some condemnable sidewalk condition. Some could be
hazardous, some will generate a complaint. When a complaint is filed, the segment is
added to the list. (N.B. This estimate means that in 80% of the segments, at least one
square has failed.)
With 4,200 properties, a typical sidewalk lifespan of 20 years, and up-to-date repair,
sidewalks at 210 properties would be replaced every year. At the current rate of
replacement, our sidewalks are currently on a 93 year replacement cycle.
On a regular replacement cycle, with average property sidewalk length of 60’, and the
2012 average square foot price of $12.73, the cost of replacing sidewalks would be in
excess of $16,000,000 over 20 years, or about $800,000 per year.
Given that 80% of all sidewalks have condemnable conditions now, the City would be
facing a $13,000,000 infrastructure project if it were to address these defects
immediately.
Preliminary and tentative program options:
The City needs to increase the capacity to rebuild sidewalks, both to catch up with
existing condemnable conditions and to have a reasonable replacement schedule.
The sidewalk program as currently structured neither motivates enough property owners
to replace sidewalks with private contractors, nor gets sufficient sidewalks replaced with
City crews. The sidewalk program seems to be trying to do two tasks at once: #1
enforce regulations and motivate owners to replace failed sidewalks, and #2 build
sidewalks when #1 fails. Staff is doing a remarkable job given the constraints: the
structure and complexity of the program, the lack of staff and funding, and perhaps the
dual focus.
Any program should have the creation of safe pedestrian infrastructure as its main
goal.
Option 1 (Enforcement) - motivate property owners to employ private contractors:
The City would need to put resources into sidewalk inspections, sending notices, fining
owners who don’t comply in a timely manner (as suggested by staff), and policing
contractors who do the sidewalk work (which is a large task).
Under the current program, having the City do the work is the ultimate penalty for not
complying with a sidewalk defect notice. Under Option 1, the City would devise other
penalties, like tickets and fines, to motivate owners. The City would NOT engage in
building sidewalks.
9
March 5, 2012
Option 2 (Construction) - expand work of city crews:
The City would put resources into additional sidewalk crews and the efficient scheduling
of construction work. They would be the only “contractor” allowed to do sidewalk work
and would pass the lower cost of higher efficiency on to owners, without the need for a
25% surcharge. No staff resources would need to be put into overseeing private
contractors, managing a complex program, or dealing with appeals.
Under the current program, the City does the majority of sidewalk work anyway. In
Option 2, it could more easily group properties for efficient work and lower material
costs, upgrade long lengths of sidewalk to ADA compliance, easily coordinate curb and
curb-ramp work, and eliminate contentious negotiations with owners.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the great work the subcommittee has done in
collecting this information and meeting with staff. It was noted that either option requires
a certain level of staffing and/or funding to implement, and the difficult budget the City
faces for 2013. Some of the proposed changes would require City Code changes,
which would require a recommendation from the Board of Public Works to Common
Council for approval. It was noted that the status quo is not working and that
something different needs to be done with the City’s sidewalk program to ensure that
there are safe sidewalks throughout the City. Mayor Myrick suggested that
Commissioners Morache and Goldsmith make a presentation to Common Council on
their current findings/recommendations to get a sense from Council members as to how
they would like to see this work implemented. Commissioner Morache also needed that
a change in the permitting process needs to occur as well so that it is clear to property
owners who are receiving sidewalk defect notices are completely informed as to what
their responsibilities are in repairing or replacing sidewalks. There was also a
suggestion to involve insurance companies as a way to motivate property owners to
repair/replace deficient sidewalks – if it meant a difference in their insurance coverage
or premiums.
NEW BUSINESS:
Resolution Supporting a New York State Department of State Local Government
Efficiency Grant Application to Study the Feasibility of Shared Services of
Tompkins County and Local Roads for Cost Savings and Efficiency Measures
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of State has available funds for the 2011-
2012 Local Government Efficiency Grant Program, and
WHEREAS, this grant program can assist the City of Ithaca in identifying opportunities
to cooperate with other local governments in the area to reduce the cost of providing
services, and
WHEREAS, the cost to maintain local roadways and bridges represents a large share of
all municipal and county budgets and property tax levies, and
WHEREAS, at a time when the cost to maintain highway infrastructure is growing
rapidly and local budgets are tightly constrained, it is increasingly difficult to maintain
basic highway infrastructure at a cost that can be supported by local budgets, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca and the Department of Public Works would benefit from
reducing the cost of adequately repairing and maintaining these roadways, and
WHEREAS, a study to evaluate the County and Local Road System and identify areas
where inter-municipal cooperation, shared services, or redistributions of responsibilities
could result in a more efficient system of providing quality highway services and lower
costs for the repair and maintenance of existing roads, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca, on behalf of its citizens, supports this effort and grant
application for approximately $100,000, with a required local cash match of 10% that
shall be allocated among the participating municipalities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca supports the County and Local Road Local
Government Efficiency Grant Program application, and, be it further
10
March 5, 2012
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca agrees, if awarded, to participate and assist in all
phases of the County and Local Road Shared Service Local Government Efficiency
Grant Study.
Mayor Myrick explained that the above resolution, provided to the Board for their
information, would be considered by Common Council at their meeting on March 7th,
and the purpose of the resolution. The Board expressed their support for the resolution,
noting that the results of the study will be very valuable going forward – especially the
economic analysis. Mayor Myrick stated that the spirit of inter-municipal cooperation
will be valuable as the city goes forward during these tough financial times.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Svante L. Myrick
Information Management Specialist Mayor