HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2012-10-15BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. October 15, 2012
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Darling, Morache, Leccese, Goldsmith, Acharya
OTHERS PRESENT:
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Information Management Specialist – Myers
EXCUSED:
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
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:
John P. Dengler, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board regarding his application to the
City of Ithaca for an additional handicap parking spot on Fayette Street, and the reasons
he is requesting a spot.
The following people addressed the Board in opposition to the recent removal of on-
street parking on Ithaca Road, as a result of extending the uphill bike lane on East
Martin Luther King, Jr./State Street up Ithaca Road:
Laurie Myer
JoAnn Myer-Foland
Judith Koch
Allie Burch
Laura Burch
Tom Hanna, Friends of Newman Golf Course, addressed the Board regarding the
proposed rates for the golf course, and the proposed resolution on the agenda
regarding the golf course.
Chris Milner, Cornell Street, addressed the Board to bring to their attention problems the
neighborhood has been experiencing with water quality since this past summer. At first
the water was rusty, now it is bright green – causing damage to clothing and towels.
Alderperson McCollister, 3rd Ward representative (which includes the area of Ithaca
Road) addressed the Board regarding the removal of on-street parking on Ithaca Road.
She encouraged the Board to review the change and needs of the residents carefully. In
addition, in a recent Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council Blog someone used
inflammatory language regarding the opposition that has been shown to the new bike
lane on Ithaca Road. This blog is not an official site of the City of Ithaca and comments
made on it do not reflect well on the City so people who comment on the blog should be
clear that they indicate to the reader that they are not speaking or representing the view
of the City of Ithaca in any way. She also noted that the zoning for the Ithaca Road
area is and has always been R-1b; not R-2.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC:
Mayor Myrick thanked everyone for their comments, and noted that Transportation
Engineer Logue provided the Board with information about all the communication to the
residents of Ithaca Road from the City regarding the removal of on-street parking for the
continuation of the bike lane on Ithaca Road.
2
October 15, 2012
Supt. Gray responded to comments about the water quality on Cornell Street, and the
Belle Sherman area and noted that he would follow-up with staff from the Water
Department to determine the cause of the problem.
Commissioner Acharya thanked the speakers for their comments, and responded to
comments made about the removal of on-street parking on Ithaca Road, and what might
be done to address concerns of the residents.
Commissioner Goldsmith thanked all the speakers for their comments, and noted that it
was helpful to have specific concerns expressed to the Board regarding the impacts of
removing on-street parking on Ithaca Road. He further noted that the Board was
provided with information from staff about what was communicated to the residents
about the Ithaca Road project and that the Board would be reviewing it as they discuss
the concerns raised by residents at a future meeting.
DAC Liaison Roberts responded to comments made about the request for a handicap
parking spot on Fayette Street. He encouraged the Board to grant the request because
there is no reason not to, as the applicant is qualified, and has provided the required
information. He expressed his frustration that the applicant had to come to the Board to
make an appeal to them about it, in an effort to get it approved. He said that the
Disability Advisory Council did not want people having to come to the Board to plead for
handicap parking.
Supt. Gray responded that the request for handicap parking on Fayette Street was
denied initially as there were already three handicap parking spots on the street;
otherwise, he would have handled this request administratively as the Board had
directed. He stated that information was provided today that two of the three handicap
parking spots were not being utilized, so he will relocate at least one of them to
accommodate the current applicant’s need.
REPORTS:
Sidewalk Subcommittee Report:
Commissioners Morache and Goldsmith worked with different city staff to prepare the
following “Proposal for Sidewalk Policy”, which Commissioner Morache summarized for
the Board.
City of Ithaca
Proposal for Sidewalk Policy
10.10.2012
Background
Ithaca has some 80 miles of sidewalks, as well as properties without adjacent
sidewalks. Many sidewalks are in poor condition, leaving a sizeable backlog of work.
City engineers estimate that bringing all badly damaged sidewalks up to code would
cost about $7 million. To repair all sidewalks to top condition would cost tens of millions
more. Laying new sidewalks where there are none would cost still more.
Residents, property owners, and city officials have cross-cutting interests and
objectives. Nearly everyone wants uniform and attractive sidewalks and efficient
methods of repair, for safety and neighborhood value. Some people feel that
responsibility for repairs should lie with property owners, who should bear the cost.
Others feel that the city should be responsible for repairs, with the costs being paid
through general city taxation. Some feel that one or the other method is more efficient or
effective or fair. Of particular concern: sidewalks often lie adjacent to tax-exempt
properties owned by the city itself, the town or county, the university or college, the
school district, or various other tax-exempt institutions .
Across the nation, initial construction of sidewalks, as well as curbing and roadways, is
almost always the responsibility of developers, who pass the cost on to buyers,
ultimately to property owners.
3
October 15, 2012
For repairing sidewalks, cities use the two methods under discussion in Ithaca:
• In many cities repairs are the responsibility of property owners, enforced by city
codes, fines, and inspections. Sometimes repairs are done by city crews, with
costs billed to property owners.
• In other cities repairs are paid for with general city revenues, whether the work is
done by city crews or by contractors employed by the city.
Current city law in Ithaca requires property owners to maintain sidewalks to a high
standard, safe for walking and wheelchair access. The city can also require property
owners to install sidewalks where they do not already exist. Sidewalk repair is
expensive, roughly $12 per square foot ($3600 for a 60 foot lot with sidewalks 5 feet
wide) plus costs of planning and inspection. Construction of new sidewalk may be more
or less expensive, depending on topography and other conditions. Property owners may
contract privately to have sidewalks repaired (with city permit and inspection), they may
make small repairs themselves, or they may choose (or have imposed) work by city
crews. Costs for sidewalk repairs vary little -- city work costs about the same as that of
private contractors with respect to labor and materials; however the City must also
charge a 25% fee to cover its administrative costs.
Ithaca Needs to Repair Sidewalks More Rapidly
Ithaca's sidewalk situation is not good enough and it is getting worse. The engineering
department maintains a list of properties about which there are specific issues - owners,
pedestrians, or handicapped persons have called in to complain, or city inspection
crews have identified failures. As of May 2012, the list contains 641 properties, about
285 of which have been sent sidewalk notices in the past 5 years. In addition, of the
4500 or so properties that have sidewalks, many have some noticeable failure or
deterioration. The city's policies require that repairs be undertaken when a property
owner is sent a notice, and the city might be liable for an injury on any one of these
properties. (The city pays out roughly $30,000 per year in sidewalk related lawsuits.)
City crews can repair 30-40 sidewalks per season. Between 10 and 30 are repaired by
their owners. Assuming 60 sidewalks are repaired each season, it will take over 10
years at the current rate to simply repair sidewalks on the list, yet the list grows faster
than the rate of repair, with 56 properties added between February 2012 and May 2012
alone.
Therefore, an accelerated program of repair is needed to make Ithaca's sidewalks safe.
Two options recommend themselves, each with pros and cons:
• The current system with responsibility falling on property owners, but
considerably reformed, that emphasizes enforcement and fines that will
encourage owners to hire private contractors to do required work in a timely
manner.
• A unified city policy of public repair of sidewalks for tax-paying properties, paid
through the general fund, with an increased tax rate.
Option 1: Property-Owner Responsibility (Ithaca's Current System, Reformed)
Under the current system, property owners are expected to maintain their own
sidewalks, getting permits and hiring contractors. The city inspects, sends notices for
required repairs with deadlines, and approves completed work. When property owners
do not hire contractors, the city can undertake the repair and bill for the work. Under an
informal policy, the city may decide not to bill for city tree damage.
At inspection, sidewalk squares are marked on a plan shared with the owner: U for
damaged and F for failed. Property owners are not required to repair U-squares. City
crews, however, typically repair all U-squares as well as F-squares, since in the long
run it is more efficient to complete all the work at once, partly because of the nature of
construction form set-up and concrete delivery practices.
Disputes over the work are not unusual - whether the work is done by the city or private
contractors. How much is due to tree damage? Should damaged as well as failed
squares be repaired? Is the work up to standard? Was the concrete clean, with the
proper water content, and properly surfaced? Costs to the city for engineering
specification and work and product inspection are substantial.
4
October 15, 2012
Many notices are sent, but little work is completed. It would seem that property owner’s
gamble - they may hope the city doesn't catch up, and the city has no method of
enforcement, other than actually doing the repair work. The city has only one
construction crew (four workers), who can complete only about 30-40 private segment
repairs in an annual season (they also work on other city projects).
To make the property-owner option more effective and efficient, the city needs to make
a series of changes. These changes will reduce costs, thus saving money for property
owners, and they will speed up repairs. Note that low-income property owners already
have -- and would retain -- avenues for cost reduction, and also that the city has a policy
allowing payment over time, at relatively low interest.
• Require sidewalk compliance prior to transfer (sale) of property. (This change is
the most drastic but least painful. Roughly XX% of properties are sold every 20
years. Given resales and the fact that many of those properties already have
adequate sidewalks, perhaps XX/2% of sidewalks will be repaired in a decade
because of this change alone.) Additional staffing necessary to handle such
inspections could be paid for by inspection fees. Radon, lead, and other time-of-
sale inspections are part of the cost of buying/selling a home, so this should not
be seen as unusual. This mechanism also gives the seller and buyer the freedom
to negotiate responsibility, and comes at a time when sufficient sums of money
are typically available to property owners.
• Make a sidewalk inspection a regular part of Certificate of Compliance (COC)
inspections for rental property. Rental property does not change hands as
frequently as owner occupied housing, so another routine inspection mechanism
is needed to insure an adequate rate of sidewalk repair in areas with a high
percentage of rental housing. COC inspections happen on a 3 year interval, and
their cost could be increased to cover staff time if necessary.
• Establish a firm set of deadline-terms and increasing fines for failure to complete
repairs. Gradually increasing fines would be imposed every 2 months if
sidewalks are not repaired within the Charter-required 60 days from the date of
notice. Fines should be significant, i.e. such that a years’ worth of fines exceeds
the cost of actually doing the work, and may be proportional to the area of
sidewalk involved. This change will speed up owner compliance, improve
sidewalks throughout the city, and reduce liability risks for owners and the city
alike. Owners with outstanding notices (many neglecting their responsibilities for
half a decade) would be sent notice of the new policy, and be given 60 days to
comply before fines are imposed. This will spur a rush of long overdue sidewalk
repair, and thus help the City get over the severe backlog. This rush may in fact
create waiting lists with private contractors, therefore fines should be suspended
if a property owner has arranged for their sidewalk to be repaired, but their
contractor cannot get to it within the 60 day period.
• Treat tree-damaged sidewalks the same as other squares, to simplify inspections
and eliminate this basis for dispute. This change will substantially reduce city
administrative costs and contribute to an acceleration of sidewalk construction.
Those cost savings will translate into lower costs for the work of city crews. It will
spur residents with extensive tree-damaged sections to choose private
contractors, since there would be no cost advantage to having the City do the
work. This will also eliminate the problem of spotty work, where an owner has a
contractor do the non-tree related damage and waits for the City to do the tree-
related work. As previously mentioned, covering the cost of tree damage has
been an informal policy, but is not required in the City Charter or code sections
defining sidewalk policy.
• Include the 25% administrative surcharge in the per square foot cost of sidewalks
stated in notices and on the City website. As a separate item, the surcharge
currently looks punitive, making it a point of contention and a basis for appeal of
sidewalk charges. In reality it is a legitimate cost associated with having a City
crew do the sidewalk work, should be included in the basic price we charge, and
5
October 15, 2012
not be subject to negotiation. Sidewalk notices should have an “estimated cost” for
the City to do the work so that owners can compare it to prices given to them by
contractors. The higher City price will act as an incentive for them to choose a
private contractor.
• Employ additional engineering staff sufficient for inspections. This change will
allow for acceleration of work by city crews - at least in the short run, if private
contractors are not ready to expand their high quality work sufficiently.
Inspections will also need to be frequent and stringent to insure that private
contractors’ work is satisfactory. We should consider that the only way to avoid
fines will be to file for a sidewalk work permit and pay inspection fees. This could
cover the cost of additional staff time, and insure both to the City and property
owner that private work is acceptable to the City.
Option 2: City Sidewalk Construction Program - only for tax-paying properties
There are about 5475 tax-paying properties in the City of Ithaca, about 4000 of which
have existing sidewalks. There are 422 tax-exempt properties, most with sidewalks. Of
the 82 miles of sidewalks in the City, only 25% are on tax-paying properties. City
taxpayers already pay for sidewalk maintenance and repair on tax-exempt properties
owned by the City itself, the School District and the County. Under a tax-based system,
all repairs to existing sidewalk on tax-paying properties, as well as the installation of
new sidewalk on tax-paying properties, would also be paid for from tax revenues.
Owners of tax exempt properties would continue to be responsible for their sidewalks,
and since most are institutional and governmental, they tend to have a good record of
sidewalk maintenance. The majority of sidewalk repair issues are with tax-paying
properties, so this type of system would likely address the bulk of sidewalk safety
conditions despite covering only 25% of City sidewalks.
All property owners would continue to be responsible for snow and ice removal.
However, injury liability on sidewalks adjacent to tax-paying properties may become the
City’s sole responsibility, as it is in relation to public streets, curbs and gutters, since the
City would be responsible for the sidewalk’s physical condition.
To implement this option, the City would need to do the following:
• Change the City Charter
• Hire at least 3 more sidewalk crews. The City currently has one 3-4 person crew
which can reasonably replace 30-40 sidewalks in a construction season at a cost
of roughly $175,000. This crew also maintains City-owned sidewalks. 3 additional
crews completely dedicated to sidewalks could replace about 200 sidewalks per
season, given higher efficiencies (see below) and would cost about $400,000
each per year, including materials. This rate of repair will be necessary to insure
a 20 year replacement cycle for all sidewalks on tax-paying properties, and be
expected to add $1.2 million per year to the City budget. It is presumed that
these employees would do other Streets and Facilities work off season.
• In lieu of hiring more City staff, the City could hire outside contractors to build its
sidewalks as needed. However, contractors hired by the City must be paid
prevailing wage, which is 2 to 3 times what City employees are paid.
Three advantages accrue with this option:
• Efficiency: City crews (or a City-hired contractor) can coordinate sidewalk work
on an entire City block at once. It can be cheaper to replace an entire block of
sidewalk than to make repairs on individual scattered properties. This will result
in more consistent, high quality work, better sidewalk continuity, and more
attractive appearance. It would also be easier to coordinate curb, gutter and
ramp work.
• Smooths out the financial burden: Since funds are collected each year, through a
modest tax increase, the pain of payment is spread among many property
owners over long periods of time.
6
October 15, 2012
• Eases the adding of new sidewalk: Rolling the cost of new sidewalk into the
sidewalk-related tax increase will make it easier to complete the sidewalk
system. City engineering estimates that new sidewalk in priority locations will
cost $8.4 million. Council would need to decide at what rate new sidewalk would
be added, if any, and increase taxes accordingly.
• Administrative costs and dispute resolution costs will be greatly reduced.
The disadvantages:
• Taxes will be increased
• The city budget and the number of city employees will need to be increased more
than with option 1, as will the future expenses related to pensions and benefits.
• The overall cost of sidewalks as a system may be higher, either because of
increasing staff and benefit costs, or if the City chooses to hire a large outside
contractor to do sidewalks.
• Owners who recently replaced sidewalks will balk at paying higher taxes after
having paid for sidewalks. Some kind of tax rebate for these properties may be
appropriate.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the merits of each option and what would
need to be done to implement either option.
DAC Liaison Roberts shared an experience in his neighborhood where someone was
required to repair a sidewalk that was not in bad shape, while another area in the
neighborhood had a sidewalk in much worse condition was left untouched. It doesn’t
appear as if there is any rationale currently as to how sidewalk repair work is prioritized.
He also stated that the City has an obligation to make it clear to property owners what
their responsibilities are for repairing and maintaining their sidewalks.
Mayor Myrick requested that this item be placed on a future agenda to allow time for a
lengthy discussion of the proposals presented. He also expressed his appreciation to
both members for their work and noted that the proposals were exactly what he was
hoping for, that both options are great scenarios for possible ways to improve the
sidewalk program.
Board members expressed their thanks and appreciation to Commissioners Morache
and Goldsmith for their work on this important issue and for the very detailed and
thoughtful options offered.
Superintendent and Staff Reports:
Asst. Supt. Benjamin reported that crews completed the curb work on Cornell Street
from East State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street to Eastwood Avenue. They will begin to
install the sidewalk there this week.
Supt. Gray reported that there are a lot of projects taking place throughout the city,
including reviewing plans/permits for Hotel Ithaca and the Commons Redesign Project.
The work on Prospect Street and the Clinton Street bridge replacement is going well,
and the bridge is on schedule still to open in mid-November.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the September 24, 2012 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes -
Resolution
By Commissioner Lecesse: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the September 24, 2012 Board of Public Works
meeting be approved as published.
Ayes (4) Myrick, Goldsmith, Acharya, Jenkins
Nays (0)
Abstentions (2) Darling, Morache
Carried
7
October 15, 2012
ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
Review of Marriott Hotel Resolution
Supt. Gray explained that he wanted the Board to review the resolution from the
September 24th meeting to make sure that it contained all the conditions and
requirements they wanted, since the resolution was written on the floor as the Board
discussed it. Board members agreed that the resolution, as written, contained the
requirements they asked for to be included in the encroachment agreement. They
requested that the City Attorney review the resolution as well to make sure all the
requirements are included in the encroachment agreement.
VOTING ITEMS:
CREEKS, BRIDGES, AND PARKS:
Flexible Seasonal Operation of Newman Golf Course – Resolution
WHEREAS, a List of Rates and Fees for 2013 has been proposed by DPW staff with
input from Friends of Newman, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the proposed List of Rates and Fees for 2013, as follows, is hereby
adopted.
Membership Fees
Discounted
Rates until
2/28/13
2013 Rates
after
2/28/13
Individual Non-Resident $ 627.00 $ 693.00
Individual Resident $ 570.00 $ 630.00
Senior Individual Non-Resident $ 570.00 $ 630.00
Senior Individual Resident $ 513.00 $ 567.00
Domestic Couple Non-Resident $ 874.00 $ 966.00
Domestic Couple Residents $ 798.00 $ 882.00
Senior Domestic Couple Non-Resident $ 836.00 $ 924.00
Senior Domestic Couple Resident $ 760.00 $ 840.00
Junior Individual Non-Resident $ 160.00 $ 240.00
Junior Individual Resident $ 140.00 $ 200.00
Family Non-Resident $ 950.00 $1,050.00
Family Resident $ 874.00 $966.00
Weekday Only, Non-Resident $ 408.50 $ 452.00
Weekday Only, Resident $ 370.50 $ 410.00
Weekday Only, Domestic Couple, Non-Res. $ 593.75 $ 656.00
Weekday Only, Domestic Couple, Resident $ 551.00 $ 609.00
Weekend Only, Individuals $ 438.00 $460.00
Weekend Only, Domestic Couple $ 571.00 $ 600.00
College Membership (Ages 18-22) (*Restricted weekdays before 4
p.m. w/ college ID and weekends after 12 noon) $ 330.00 $ 347.00
City Employee $ 330.00 $ 347
Daily Greens Fees
2013 Rates
Before 2
p.m.
2013 Rates
After 2 p.m.
9 Holes Weekday $ 13.00 $ 10.00
9 Holes Weekday w/ Cart $ 16.00 $ 16.00
9 Holes Weekend $ 15.00 $ 13.00
9 Holes Weekend w/ Cart $ 18.00 $ 18.00
18 Holes Weekday $ 17.00 $ 14.00
18 Holes Weekday w/ Cart $22.00 $ 22.00
18 Holes Weekend $ 21.00 $ 17.00
18 Holes Weekend w/ Cart $ 24.00 $ 24.00
Guest Day (Select Wednesdays) $10.00 $ 15.00
Guest Day w/ Cart $ 16.00 $ 25.00
8
October 15, 2012
Cart Rental Fees 9 Holes 18 Holes
Member $ 6.00 $ 10.00
Non-Member $ 7.00 $ 11.00
The Board did not act on this resolution. Extensive discussion followed on the floor
regarding options the Board might have in setting rates for the golf course and working
with the Friends of Newman Golf Course to promote use of the course.
Friends of Newman Representative, Tom Hanna, provided a draft proposal for proposed
2013 cart and green fees for the golf course. He also noted that he would work with
Asst. Supt. Benjamin to draft a resolution for the Board which addresses requirements
in the city code for the Board’s oversight of setting rates for the golf course, and ways to
bring more flexibility in the management of the course without making a change to the
code. Supt. Gray stated that information contained in that proposed resolution should be
clear in the intent of the actions of the Board so as to be helpful when research may be
conducted in the future as to why these changes were made. Mr. Hanna also noted
that the Mayor’s proposed 2013 budget does not show the revenue for the ballpark,
pool, or rink at Cass Park – only the revenue from the golf course. He noted that it
would be helpful in the future to show the revenue for all the public recreational facilities.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Recommendation to Approve Request for a Reserved Parking for Persons with
Disabilities Parking Space at 114 Fayette Street:
Applicant attended the meeting to speak during the public speaking portion to appeal
the denial of his request for an additional handicap spot on the street. He provided
information during the meeting that indicated two of the three handicap spots already on
the street are not being used, and are not accessible to him. Supt. Gray will look to
relocate the current handicap spots so that one will meet applicant’s need and eliminate
the need to create an additional space. Discussion followed on the floor about the
Board’s decision last year to have the Supt. handle these requests administratively,
which he would have – had he known that two of the current spots weren’t being
utilized.
2013 Rates and Fees:
2013 Rates and Fees for parking, trash, yard waste tags, and water and sewer rates will
be placed on the October 22, 2012 agenda.
The Board would like the City Attorney to review some of the parking agreements with
terms of 99 years to see if they can be amended in anyway to reflect current rates.
On-Street Parking on Ithaca Road:
The Board would like to discuss the communication between residents and the city
about the removal of on-street parking. Items for discussion: possible issuance of
RPP’s on nearby streets, handicap parking spots at the top and bottom of Ithaca Road,
signage designating 2 hour parking on Elmwood and Dryden Roads, speed control, any
possibility of parking in the park or around the park area.
Repair of Cobblestone Portion of Ferris Place – Update:
This item was not discussed, will be placed on October 22, 2012 BPW agenda.
Comprehensive Plan Update:
This item was not discussed, will be placed on October 22, 2012 BPW agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Svante L. Myrick
Information Management Specialist Mayor