Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2011-10-19BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. October 19, 2011 PRESENT: Vice Chair Jenkins Commissioners (3) - Morache, Warden, Acharya OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin Common Council Liaison – Zumoff Information Management Specialist - Myers Civil Engineer – West Traffic Systems Engineer - Logue EXCUSED: Mayor Peterson Commissioners Goldsmith, Wykstra DAC Liaison Roberts Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Supt. Gray requested that the order of the agenda be changed as follows: #1 Item 9.4 entitled “Review of Unused City Property” #2 Item 9.1 entitled “Livable Streets” #3 Item 9.2 entitled “Sidewalk Program Stop Work Order” No Board Member objected. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS: The Mayor was unable to attend the meeting. COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD: Tom Hanna, City of Ithaca and Member of the Friends of Newman Golf Course, addressed the Board. He stated that Friends of Newman Golf Course prepared the following report, in response to a request from the Board of Public Works, with recommendations for increasing membership at Newman Golf Course. Newman Goals for Staging a Recovery from the Impact of the Record Rains and Flooding of 2011: Weather, and perhaps the economic downturn, was a major factor in the decline of memberships between 2001 and 2011. The total decline in those 10 years was from 246 memberships to 80 memberships. Clearly the impact of the weather in 2011 was the most dramatic. Specific ideas for how to spur a recovery include: 1. Provide price incentives for first time members; half-season memberships, fall season memberships for college students, and special rates for Ithaca youth, for example. 2. Revamp membership classifications. Staff has suggested a single set of membership rates with a "proof of city address" discount of 10% or 20% 3. Put an advertising line in the budget 4. Increase marketing through Friends of Newman events and activities 5. Set 2012 rates now at the 2011 levels and offer an early sign-up incentive valid until March 15, 2012 The aim would be to regain the 200-membership baseline last recorded in 2006. The recovery is a first step in a set of actions that can make for a long range positive outcome. Board of Public Works, Friends of Newman and Department of Public Works staff can all help turn the current challenge into an opportunity. 2 October 19, 2011 ACTIONS REQUESTED OF BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS: 1. Approval of 2012 Membership Rates 2. Approve Revision of City-Non-City Memberships 3. Approve Early Membership Sign-up plan through March 15 2012 4. Make policy decision to move towards a golf range and practice area involving a minor course revision 5. Make a policy decision in favor of accessing waste water plant effluent to replace drinking water for irrigating the course 6. Voice support for filling the vacant Golf Course Manager position 7. Request plan for Green golf cart alternatives FRIENDS OF NEWMAN POST-SEASON WORK: 1. Friends Open Review and plan for 2011 2. Ideas for successful membership campaign 3. Taking the next steps on the Master Plan 4. Building a focus on growing golf programs for youth DPW STAFF ACTIONS NEEDED: 1. Finish extension or re-bid for golf cart leasing for 3 or 5 years 2. Develop Golf Course Manager job description modification 3. Prepare case for Vacancy Review Friends will work with staff starting Friday, October 21, to refine this brief and will hope to finalize report by October 28, 2011. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC: Commissioner Acharya thanked Mr. Hanna for the specific suggestions that Friends of Newman Golf Course provided regarding their recommendations for increasing membership at the golf course. He thinks the incentives for early registration and special youth rates are a great idea. He would like to have the Board vote on the 2012 fees early as well to help support some of the incentives noted in the recommendation. He also asked whether there was a way to allow staff to be more nimble in trying to capture some of these incentives, and if so, he would be very much in favor of that. Supt. Gray responded that he would be happy to try to put that proposed budget together. He would need to meet with the City Controller to establish a budget that would also need Board of Public Works and Common Council approval. The resolution in support of a proposed budget would need to indicate there are various budgetary programs/incentives that would be undertaken that would be budget neutral that would allow staff some flexibility in establishing them. He also stated that the Mayor and City Controller would need to be comfortable with whatever rates are established. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Review of Unused City Property: Supt. Gray explained that the Mayor's proposed 2012 budget includes revenue of approximately $125,000 derived from the sale of some excess or underutilized property that the City owns. While the City sells old dump trucks, police cars, and copy machines annually, this revenue was meant to reflect the sale of property which has collected in City hands for any of a long list of reasons, from tax sale of abandoned property, to the remnants of property taken for street construction or realignments. Civil Engineer West joined the Board and provided a presentation regarding a proposed list of City-owned property and a pre-selected list of underutilized properties for the Board's review prior to making recommendations to Common Council of properties that could be sold to make up the revenues proposed in the draft budget. Supt. Gray further explained that a long range view of this issue would lead him to recommend a list which consisted of as many properties as possible. He stated that while some money is already in the proposed budget, returning more property into private hands encourages fuller utilization of the property and can improve the City's position by reducing costs, increasing the tax base, and perhaps utilizing dollars from 3 October 19, 2011 the sale of a capital asset to pay down the City's capital debt. Reduced debt can reduce annual budgets, improve bond ratings and provide greater flexibility in future budgets. Civil Engineer West stated that he would recommend that the City divest itself of certain properties that are currently unused. He stated they he and Supt. Gray have reviewed a list of City-owned properties provided by City Chamberlain Debra Parsons to determine which properties might be surplused and returned to the property tax rolls. Although many of the properties on this list are currently used for City facilities or activities a significant number of properties are not used by the City or a licensee. As per discussion with Steve Thayer, he would recommend properties that would have a good chance of being purchased and would either return significant benefit to the City or would reduce our maintenance and/or administrative expenses. The properties that are recommended for sale on this first list do not include all unused properties. The importance of divesting of these properties can not be over-stated. The City suffers from an artificially limited tax base due to the large number of properties owned by tax exempt institutions. In addition, ownership of properties implies some responsibility for maintenance and the costs associated with maintenance. Sale of unused properties not only provides immediate revenue generation but, by putting the property back on the tax rolls the City will receive annual payment of property taxes. Many of our unused properties have the potential to generate even greater property tax revenue if developed for housing or other uses consistent with zoning. A brief description of the properties follows: • 709 East Seneca Street - unused residential parcel, 0.17 acre, assessed $50,000 • 213, 215 West Spencer Street - unused residential parcels, 0.47 acre, assessed $124,000 • 199 Floral Avenue - unused residential parcel, 0.19 acre, assessed $20,000 • 321 Elmira Road - decommissioned pump station, 0.4 acre, assessed $189,000 • 715 Willow Avenue - unused public land, 0.75 acre, assessed $44,000 • 324 - 346 Floral Avenue - unused residential parcels, 2.1 acres, assessed $90,000 • Cherry Street Industrial Park - undeveloped industrial land, 8.25 acres, assessed $825,000 Civil Engineer West stated that he would recommend that these properties be considered for sale by the City as soon as possible, and that subsequent or expanded lists can be developed in the future. Commissioner Morache stated that he likes this proposal; however, he would like to see the City maintain the ability for any future right-of-way it might need over certain properties – perhaps make it a condition of a sale. Commissioner Acharya expressed his support for the comments made by Commissioner Morache. He stated that this type of work is exactly what the City needs to be doing, and if there are more parcels that could be sold they should be included as well. Discussion followed on the floor regarding whether or not the City would be able to decide what gets developed where or whether it would work through the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, how infrastructure would be paid for and put into place, as well as future maintenance cost considerations. 4 October 19, 2011 City Attorney Hoffman stated that Mayor Peterson asked him to speak on her behalf on this proposal, since she was unable to attend the meeting. He explained that she does desire to generate revenue for the City through the sale of unused property, as long as it would not be needed by the City in the future. She feels that the Board of Public Works should focus on public works issues; however, that is not how the proposed resolution is written. He stated that the Mayor and others on Common Council are concerned about how the natural environment would be affected by development in some locations, and the need to preserve that environment as much as possible. She is concerned about further development on Floral Avenue as the City was not pleased with how Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services developed the multi-unit housing there recently. There is also concern about traffic flow and congestion if further multi-unit housing is developed on Floral Avenue. It is important that visual and natural views are maintained as much as possible upon development of any site. She also feels that the City should not sell the Willow Avenue property because of the potential for future public works needs there – especially since the City purchased the property for quite a large sum not too long ago. She is not in favor of selling the Cherry Street property because she does not feel the City has determined what is going to happen there in the near future. City Attorney Hoffman then expressed his concerns which were that he has not seen a survey map after the City obtained the Cherry Street property from the Weiners. He remembers that there was reference in that sale to it possibly being substitute parkland, which could not be sold without alienation; so, that question needs to be answered. He further stated that at the Natural Areas Commission meeting on October 17, 2011 that he attended, as well as Board of Public Works liaison Wykstra, that the commission believes this parcel has some value as recreational or environmental habitat. He further stated that Commissioner Wykstra expressed at that meeting, that he does not feel that property should be sold until after the City completes its Comprehensive Plan. Supt. Gray responded that the Board of Public Works would largely be dealing with the public works activities of these properties for maintenance if they are not sold. He also stated that anything that the Board of Public Works were to recommend regarding the sale and use of these properties would then be filtered by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, the Planning Department, and Common Council. He further stated that Civil Engineer West has represented in large view, the feeling of the Engineering Office regarding the value of selling these parcels of unused city land. He then explained the history of the acquisition of the properties by the City, and addressed concerns raised by the Natural Areas Commission. He stated that the use by the Department of Public Works of the land by the golf course on Willow Avenue would not necessarily be the best for the City. He stated that land would be valuable for other development and the activities of the Department of Public Works could be moved elsewhere, where the value of the land may not be so high (i.e. near Tompkins County Solid Waste Division on Commercial Avenue). He does not feel waiting until the Comprehensive Plan is completed is a wise idea either because of the amount of time that it will take to do that. He further noted that this process needs to be started because a lot of the properties were acquired by and leased by the City on Elmira Road when it was widened that need to be put back onto the tax rolls since the City no longer needs them. Commissioner Acharya stated that Mayor Peterson and Commissioner Wykstra’s thoughts are problematic to him because in effect the City is holding onto properties that could go back onto the tax rolls, and waiting until the Comprehensive Plan is completed means that nothing will happen because completion of the plan could take forever. He stated that the City needs to move forward on this initiative which will help to generate revenue by increasing the tax base, as well as bring the potential for additional employment opportunities. He stated that these properties need to be sold, as well as others that are not listed, and he would like to bring the proposed resolution forward. Discussion followed on the floor regarding what steps the Board needs to take next. Commissioner Jenkins noted that when all is said and done by the Board, Common Council will have the final say in the disposition of the properties. City Attorney Hoffman noted that in some cases too, environmental review would be required before the properties could be sold. 5 October 19, 2011 Supt. Gray stated that Common Council usually consults with Department of Public Works staff and the Board of Public Works about what land it will or will not need in the future, and/or what their recommendations might be. It would be up to Common Council to balance the needs of the City and the public for certain development goals. Civil Engineer West stated that the Board of Public Works could recommend certain properties for sale now, that the Department of Public Works clearly does not need for certain activities,and then review the others for what needs may be there. Supt. Gray stated that certain right-of-ways would also need to be determined as well when the properties are sold so the City would have the ability to maintain water and sewer lines. He further stated that if the Board of Public Works makes a recommendation then further discussion will need to occur with the Planning Board/Planning Department and Common Council. He stated that he would bring back a modified version of the proposed resolution below for the Board’s consideration at the October 26, 2011 meeting. Commissioner Morache wondered whether it would make sense to do a separate resolution for each property, so that, if needed, certain conditions could be included for specific properties. Supt. Gray stated that if that is how the Board would like him to bring the resolutions to them, then he would be happy to do that. The Board agreed that they would like to see individual resolutions. Civil Engineer West stated that they did look at the survey that City Attorney Hoffman questioned regarding substitute parkland and determined the land was not used in that way. He stated that staff could do more research though to confirm. City Attorney Hoffman advised staff to research the alienation of Taughannock Blvd for substitute parkland where individual parcels are listed because that might help answer this question of whether or not the land was ever turned into “substitute parkland”. Sale of Unused City Property - Resolution WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is in possession of a number of discreet properties that are currently unused, and WHEREAS, these properties are not generating property tax revenues, and WHEREAS, due to severe economic constraints and increased expenses the City is likely to face harsh budget repercussions over the next several years, and WHEREAS, divesting of these properties will generate immediate revenue as well as assure continued property tax revenue, and WHEREAS, development of these properties will further increase revenue to the City, now be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works recommends to the City of Ithaca Common Council that the following properties should be sold and returned to the tax rolls: • 709 East Seneca Street, Tax parcel 68.-2-9.2, 0.17 acre • 213 West Spencer Street, Tax parcels 93.-7-3, 0.06 acre • 215 West Spencer Street, Tax parcels 93.-7-5.1, 0.41 acre • 199 Floral Avenue, Tax Parcel 58.-8-3, 0.19 acre • 321 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel 122.-2-1, 0.4 acre • 715 Willow Avenue, Tax Parcel 16.-1-4.2, 0.75 acre • 324 - 330 Floral Avenue, Tax Parcel 97.-1-1, 0.64 acres • 334 Floral Avenue, Tax Parcel 97.-1-2, 0.34 acres • 338 Floral Avenue, Tax Parcel 97.-1-3, 0.34 acres • 340 Floral Avenue, Tax Parcel 97.-1-4, 0.34 acres • 346 Floral Avenue, Tax Parcel 97.-1-5, 0.34 acres • Cherry Street Industrial Park, Tax Parcel 100.-2-1.2, 8.25 acres 6 October 19, 2011 2. Sidewalk on Cornell Street: Transportation Engineer Logue joined the Board for discussion of this topic. He He explained that a Board Commissioner asked that the topic of sidewalk construction on Cornell Street, particularly on the west side of the street between East State/Martin Luther King Jr. Street, be put on the Board agenda. This memo is meant to provide some background on the topic and provide some choices going forward. Background: He stated that his experience with this area goes back to 2006 when a number of residents along Giles Street were petitioning the City for traffic calming and improved pedestrian conditions. In conjunction with those requests, area residents also pointed out the need for a continuous sidewalk up Cornell Street, pedestrian improvements for the traffic signal at Cornell & Giles Street, and additional sidewalk segments to fill gaps along East State/Martin Luther King Jr. Street. Based on this feedback, staff prepared a grant application for federal funding to construct sidewalk along the length of Giles Street and along the first block of Cornell Street just north of East State/Martin Luther King Jr. Street. The grant was submitted in 2008 for a total project cost of approximately $1.5 million; of these monies about $180,000 was budgeted for construction of sidewalk along the one block of Cornell Street and for new pedestrian signals and buttons at the intersection. The grant application included a $50,000 contribution from the Cornell/Community Transportation Initiative, which Cornell had included in their program, and the assumption of a sidewalk assessment toward the abutting property owners. The City did not get the grant. As part of the traffic calming discussions, Public Works agreed to at least paint an edge line on Cornell Street to create a 10 foot wide southbound travel lane, leaving the balance of space as a shoulder to walk in. This is admittedly sub- standard because there is very little space in the shoulder before the edge of pavement falls into the somewhat broken up concrete gutter. However, short of installing new curbing, enclosing the drainage, building a retaining wall and pouring a new sidewalk, it seemed to be at least something to define a walking area. He further explained that In January 2010, staff submitted a federal funding request to Congressman Hinchey's office for a project cost of $320,000 for the sidewalk on Cornell Street and the signal improvements, but excluding the sidewalk segment along Giles Street. The City was not successful with this request either. Options Going Forward: The Board of Public Works has a few options: A) Do nothing. B) Direct the Engineering Office to produce a preliminary plan for new sidewalk and a cost estimate, with the intention of directing new sidewalk construction in accordance with the Uniform Sidewalk procedure in the City Charter and City Code. Though the sidewalk construction is technically more complicated, the process to direct new sidewalk would be the same as the recent order for new sidewalk along South Plain Street. One of the big decisions would be to determine who would do the work. Since this work is somewhat complicated, I would recommend that construction either be handled by City forces or by a contractor hired by the City, and that the work not be left to the property owners to coordinate. If City forces undertake the work or if the City hires a contractor, it would make sense to ask Common Council to establish a capital project to cover the costs in the first instance and then assess costs as per the Charter & Code. Also, a schedule would need to be worked out. The Engineering Office could probably take on the design effort for 2012. If contracted, construction could happen in 2013. If done in-house, it may take a little longer. Some questions may arise as to whether the City will assess all the associated costs for the new sidewalk; for example, would the City assess the costs of enclosing the drainage? 7 October 19, 2011 D) Direct the Engineering Office to prepare another grant. The grant would include design, construction and construction inspection. The grant would require a local match, which could be assessments against abutting property owners. Alternatively, the BPW could request funding from Common Council. The project might be able to include some funding from the Cornell/Community Transportation Initiative (the status of this funding is unclear to me). Supt. Gray stated that he has never seen the City of Ithaca require a property owner to pay such an exorbitant amount for a sidewalk. Harry Littel and Brenda Marston, property owners near Cornell Street who have requested that the City construct a sidewalk on Cornell Street addressed the Board to express their concerns about lack of sidewalk here. They noted that children travel on the road to attend Belle Sherman Elementary School and the dangers they face as they walk the street both in the winter time and at night. They noted that this is a very heavily traveled street, and agreed with the City that it is unreasonable to expect the property owners to pay for the cost of construction of a sidewalk here. Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding how the City could install a sidewalk here, when the cost is so prohibited – for both property owners and the City during this very difficult budget time. Commissioner Acharya encouraged staff to pursue other funding sources for the cost of constructing the sidewalk here, including approaching Cornell University for assistance in funding such a project. Mr. Littel and Ms. Marston questioned the high cost figures, the need to prioritize this work over proposed redesign of the Commons, and fact that there are life/safety concerns involved. They suggested the construction of just a gravel path, which might be better than nothing; although it was noted by staff that there are drainage and retaining wall issues that need to be considered even for a gravel path. City Attorney Hoffman wondered whether reconstructing the shoulder of one side of the road here might help some. He noted that the idea of something that is less than perfect might be better than nothing. Staff noted again the fact that because of drainage issues and the somewhat broken up concrete gutter, even a gravel path would not be easy to install there either. Commissioner Acharya volunteered to work with Transportation Engineer Logue and Supt. Gray to look at how different funding sources might be found to help fund the project as well as work towards a proposed design. He stated that this is a very important location for a sidewalk and every effort should be made to find a way to do it. Transportation Engineer Logue offered, if the Board is interested, to go out and do a site survey and work on a proposed design during the winter for both the east and west sides of the street. The Board expressed their strong support for this work to be completed. 3. Livable Streets: Supt. Gray explained that Executive Assistant Gehring had found a 10 minute video about "Livable Streets" to help set the context for the Board’s continuing discussion on livable streets applied to a smaller scale, smaller budget city. He noted that he reacts poorly to starting work on a new program when the City is losing positions, and money from its operating budget, but intellectually he knows that making the city easier, cheaper, faster, and more fun to move around and live in will eventually pay important dividends. He further noted that change takes time, effort, and money at a time when resources are diminishing so taking the long investment view is not easy. He also knows that having a plan in place makes it easier for staff to incorporate the desired changes into everyday maintenance work, making the changes less expensive but slower in their implementation. The Board watched the video and was supportive of the idea expressed through it about livable streets. 8 October 19, 2011 Topics for October 26, 2011 Board of Public Works Agenda: 1. Sidewalk Program Stop Work Order 2. Meeting Schedule for November and December 2011 3. Livable Streets 4. Bike Greenways and Blvds. 4. Sidewalk Program Stop Work Order This item was not discussed. 5 BPW Meeting Schedule for November and December 2011 This item was not discussed. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor