HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2014-11-24BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. November 24, 2014
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Commissioners (5) - Morache, Goldsmith, Warden, Jenkins, Darling
OTHERS PRESENT:
Superintendent of Public Works - Thorne
Assistant Superintendent for Water & Sewer - Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Fleming
Information Management Specialist - Myers
Director of Engineering – West
Transportation Engineer – Logue
Engineering Technician – Johnson
Fire Chief – Parsons
City Clerk – Holcomb
EXCUSED:
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin
Parking Director – Nagy
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Mayor Myrick requested the deletion of item 9.3 entitled “Disability Advisory Council
2013 Survey Results and Recommendations” as DAC Chair Roberts could not attend
today’s meeting.
No Board Member Objected.
MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Myrick reported briefly on his recent trip to Zurich, Switzerland for a Young
Leaders conference he was invited to.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
The following people addressed the Board in support of the proposal to modify the City
of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan to include Plain Street as the north/south route through
the City, as well as to express their support for the City’s efforts to encourage and
increase bike ridership in the City:
David West, City of Ithaca
*Marshall McCormick, City of Ithaca
Tom Knipe, City of Ithaca
Bob Rossi, City of Ithaca
Mary Buehler, City of Ithaca
*Mr. MacCormick provided the Board a petition with 243 signatures in support of the
Bike Boulevard plan to make Plain Street the north/south route for bicyclists through the
City.
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC:
The Board deferred their comments until the Bike Boulevard resolution was considered
later in the meeting.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
2
REPORTS:
Mayor Myrick reported that Commissioner Darling has agreed to be the BPW liaison to
the Planning and Development Board; he hopes to confirm that appointment at the
December 3, 2014 Common Council Meeting. He expressed his thanks to
Commissioner Darling for his willingness to take on this additional board assignment.
SUPERINTENDENT AND STAFF:
Supt. Thorne reported that staff met with representatives from New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation on November 21, 2014; regarding the
dredging of Cayuga Inlet. He stated that good progress is being made so that dredging
may begin within the near future; he will bring information regarding design and
construction plans to the Board for their next meeting on December 8th.
Supt. Thorne further reported on the recent gorge trail closure due to safety concerns.
They do plan to re-open it once safer fencing is installed. However, before they can do
that some additional easements from adjoining property owners are needed, so staff is
working with the Attorney’s Office on that.
Director of Engineering West reported that bid packages for the expansion of the skate
park have gone out. He further reported on the Commons redesign project; they lost
about a week of work on installing the new pavers because of last week’s extremely
cold weather. They might be able to continue work on installing pavers if the weather
cooperates this week. In addition, they put concrete in other areas to make a smooth
surface for the winter. Old Elmira Road – the new pavement is down, curbing is in as
well as new driveway ramps – which seem to be working well. In addition, with the
recent heavy rain storm drains seem to be working well to divert water away from the
roadway. The new sidewalks along Old Elmira Roar will be installed in the Spring.
Goldsmith stated that he would like to encourage the City to consider the creation of a
municipal utilities system; he noted that an expert group proposed this when Hunna
Johns was Mayor of the City of Ithaca. The group's report showed that municipalities
have distinctive advantages in creating their own systems as they can buy utilities
cheaper.
Supt. Thorne reported that staff made a proposal and is waiting for an answer as to
whether the City could hire an electrical engineer to do the design work, have NYSEG
review it instead of vice versa, and then the City of Ithaca could contract out the work.
This might help to speed up construction projects throughout the City.
Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that staff and the consultants from O'Brien and Gere
completed, substantially, the inspections on most of the preliminary work on Giles Street
residual areas as well as the pump station on West Hill. He stated that completion
certificates will be issued soon. In addition, staff has been working on an agreement
with Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Group for water resources during the
rebuild of the new water plant; a similar agreement is being worked on for Cornell
University. He will have the agreements ready for review at the Board’s December 8,
2014 meeting. Another item for that same meeting will be information on dams and
dam safety inspections, and the plan for inspections of them in the future.
Commissioner Morache expressed his support for Commissioner Goldsmith’s idea of the City
creating its own utilities. He comes from a small community with municipal power, and feels
that topic would be appropriate for discussion by the Board. Especially since the City has
created its own stormwater law, sidewalk program, and its own water plant. Commissioner
Goldsmith responded that he would contact Richard Schramm who was also involved/interested
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
3
in the City of Ithaca creating its own utility center in the past to help him locate archived
information about the topic. The rest of the Board expressed their interest in the
information and would like to discuss the topic further.
HIGHWAYS, STREETS AND SIDEWALKS:
Resolution to Modify the City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan
By Commissioner Morache: Seconded by Commissioner Goldsmith
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2012, the Board of Public Works adopted the City of
Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan dated September 12, 2012, prepared by the Office of the
City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2012, Common Council authorized the submission of an
application for funding under the federal Safe Routes to School program to implement
portions of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan that related directly to Beverly J. Martin
Elementary School, Fall Creek Elementary School, and Boynton Middle School, and
WHEREAS, the City was awarded this funding and has begun preliminary engineering
for the project, and
WHEREAS, during the preliminary engineering phase of the project, additional public
outreach has generated a conversation about reconsidering an alternative north/south
route that was evaluated during early stages of preparing the Bicycle Boulevard plan,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has been approached by the City’s Bicycle
Pedestrian Advisory Council, Bike Walk Tompkins, and Way2Go, requesting that the
Bike Boulevard be built on Plain Street instead of Corn Street and Park Place, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration and further discussion with these groups and the
Fire Department, staff is recommending changing the route of the Bike Boulevard to
Plain Street instead of Corn Street and Park Place; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby approves the
recommendation of staff to use Plain Street as a segment of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan
and directs staff to progress the Safe Routes to School project using Plain Street
instead of Corn Street and Park Place, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs staff to prepare an updated Bicycle
Boulevard Plan to reflect these changes.
Fire Chief Parsons, Transportation Engineer Logue, and Engineering Technician
Johnson joined the Board for discussion of this item.
Fire Chief Parsons provided the following memo to the Board for their information:
“November 24th, 2014
Board of Public Works
108 E Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re: Bicycle Boulevards
Dear Members of the Board;
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
4
I’m writing you today to express my concern over the changes to the bicycle boulevard plan,
and my concern for the safety of children bicycling down the narrow street in the 200 Block of
South Plain Street.
In 2012, I was contacted by Tim Logue to discuss different concepts for a bicycle boulevard
route on North and South Plain Street as part of a plan that would be funded by the “Safe Route
to Schools Program”. During the conversations with Tim and Kent Johnson, Engineering Aid, I
was presented with different plans that would provide a designated route for bicyclists traveling
from Titus Flats to the North End of the city. There were two parts of the plan that I had
concerns over. First, the plan presented to me included traffic diverters to keep traffic from
traveling south from West Green Street to West Clinton Street. Second, the plans also limited
traffic from entering onto North Plain Street from West Seneca Street. The reason for the traffic
diversion was to make Plain Street safer for bicyclists, especially children who would be using
the route to go to school.
The problem for the Fire Department is: the 100 blocks of North and South Plain Streets are
used daily by the department’s emergency vehicles responding from and returning to Central
Fire Station at 310 West Green Street. On average the department uses those two blocks
about 40 or more times per day. In addition, the department uses the 200 block of South Plain
Street several times per week as an emergency response route from West Green Street down
to the 700 Block of South Meadow Street. South Plain Street is also the most direct route to
Cleveland Avenue. In my opinion those plans would have increased our response time; and
would have caused our apparatus to detour around Plain Street, traveling longer routes to get
back to Central Fire Station.
Over a month ago I was asked by Kent Johnson if I could meet with him, Tim Logue, and
members of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC) to discuss the previously approved
Bicycle Boulevard plan. The purpose of the meeting was to seek my support and approval for
the Bicycle Boulevard to be changed from Corn Street back to Plain Street. During the meeting,
which occurred on October 31, 2014, it was argued that Plain Street would be the most direct
route of travel and more people would likely use -- being a direct route. It was also suggested
by members of BPAC the need for additional traffic calming devices along the route to slow
traffic down in an effort to make it safer for bicyclists. I suggested that maybe the solution is not
a Bicycle Boulevard, but rather create dedicated bicycle lanes on streets with controlled
intersections. Bicycle lanes would provide a safer corridor for children and adults by providing a
separation between vehicles and bicyclists. The objection to this idea was that it would require
the removal of on-street parking and there was a concern this would lack community support.
If I was sure that the revised route would be the best plan for a bicycle boulevard, I wouldn’t
hesitate to support the change. However, I view the plan as probably temporary, because
sooner or later there will be safety concerns raised with the Plain Street Route and eventually
there will be a request for additional traffic interventions with diversions to make the plan safer.
In my opinion, future proposals will likely ‘creep’ back towards limited traffic by diverting vehicles
way from North and South Plain Streets, along with added traffic calming devices as was
originally proposed two years ago.
In closing, I ask you to keep the bicycle boulevard with the previously approved route, which
uses Corn Street instead of Plain Street, until such time that a more comprehensive plan can be
developed and implemented that maintains the existing emergency vehicle routes, and provides
the best level of safety for both adults and children by way of designated bicycle lanes through
light controlled intersections.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
C. Thomas Parsons
Fire Chief
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
5
Commissioner Morache voiced the idea that in lieu of full blown bike lanes, would it help
to remove parking on one side of the street to provide two wider travel lanes?
Transportation Engineer Logue also provided the following memo to the Board
regarding the proposed Bicycle Boulevard:
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer
Date: November 19, 2014
Re: Proposed Route Change for the Safe Routes to School Project and
Bicycle Boulevard Plan
“At your last meeting, we presented the concept of changing the route for the Safe
Routes to School project, which implements a portion of the Bicycle Boulevard plan, for
the long north/south route from the Southside neighborhood to the Northside
neighborhood. At the time, staff was open to the change, but somewhat ambivalent.
Since then, we have had a number of follow up conversations with the advocacy groups
who spoke at the last meeting and who are in favor for moving the route over to Plain
Street. Based on those conversations and the considerations below, staff recommends
moving the route to Plain Street.
Clarity, directness, usefulness:
The Plain Street route is obviously more direct if one is traveling from the northern end
of the City to the southern end or vice versa. But it is also a better and more direct
connection for many of the trips that will be promoted through the Safe Routes to
School program. I can imagine a parent or two meeting a group of children at the
Southside Community Center and then riding as a group, a Biking School Bus if you
will, to BJM Elementary. Or, parents might ride back home after picking up their kids at
GIAC after school programs.
The Plain Street route is also more legible, intuitive, and easier to describe. This will
make it a stronger component of our bicycle related infrastructure. Originally, in
developing the Bike Boulevard plan, we had wanted to use Plain Street. After talking
with the Fire Chief, however, we thought the trade-off of traffic diversion and more traffic
calming options was worth moving a block over. If the interest in traffic diversion and
calming is not strong (and it seems to not be), then Plain Street does become more of
the preferred route.
Crossing Busy Streets:
One concern that has come up in a recent public meeting and regularly in our
conversations with other groups is the importance of crossing the busy streets of Green,
Seneca and Buffalo. Two years ago, when we were preparing the plan, we didn’t get a
lot of public feedback and we imagined that the higher priority would be reducing traffic
volumes or speeds. As we have drawn closer to construction, we are getting more
feedback and we are clearly hearing that the crossings are a higher priority than the
treatments along the boulevard itself. So, we are refocusing on the crossings of these
three streets. Currently, we have a separate project for the crossings of Green &
Seneca streets; it may well be that we will want to pursue traffic control at these
crossings as well, but this currently out of budget for the Safe Routes to School project
and the Bulb-out project. Instead, we will begin to evaluate the warrants for traffic
control at these intersections over the winter. We can then open the conversation with
the New York State Department of Transportation and we can pursue the recent funding
stream that is available to us for these streets. We knew that the Safe Routes to School
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
6
project would be a first phase of implementation of the Bike Boulevard plan and that we
would need a second phase to complete it. These crossings can be pursued as part of
the second phase.
The move over to Plain Street also avoids difficult left turns at Buffalo Street that would
otherwise be required to jog from Corn Street to Park Place. At certain times of day,
Buffalo Street carries a lot of traffic and these turns can be very tricky, even for an
experienced bicycle rider. Crossing Buffalo Street at Plain Street, however, is not so
challenging because there is already a traffic signal there, and the intersection is also
the beginning of the school speed zone that wraps around the city block encompassing
Immaculate Conception school, BJM Elementary school and GIAC. There is also a
signal at Plain and Court streets.
Equity:
In short, Plain Street is an historic and popular connection between Southside &
Northside. We are hearing that instead of expecting people to go out of their way to find
a bicycle and pedestrian priority street, we should take advantage of what many people
are already doing, and that an investment in Plain Street is more likely to benefit people
from all walks (or rides) of life and more likely to avoid what is at least a perception by
some that Corn Street and Plain Street are used by different kinds people along lines of
race and class. In my opinion, Plain Street is a stronger step toward ensuring a safe
route to school and a bike boulevard for a more underserved population in the City.
Corn Street and Plain Street Similarities:
Traffic volumes and traffic safety dynamics at the four intersections (the two along Corn
Street at Green and Seneca, and the two along Plain Street at Green and Seneca) are
essentially the same. Recent traffic counts indicate that traffic volumes are very similar
on Corn Street and Plain Street; both streets carry between 2,000 and 2,500 vehicle per
day (this is actually an extrapolation of an hourly count and may be overestimating the
daily volumes).
Traffic collisions also are very similar at the four intersections. For the three year period
from December 2007 to November 2010, the following average number of collisions
was reported:
Corn & Seneca: 2 crashes/year Plain & Seneca: 4 crashes/year
Corn & Green: 2 crashes/year Plain and Green: 3 crashes/year
In my opinion, the difference among 2 crashes per year, 3 crashes per year, or 4
crashes per year is not significant. Each intersection had one pedestrian collision in the
three year period. If there was any identifiable pattern (and this is a little stretch), it
seems to be motorists sideswiping another car in the intersection as they consider
making a left turn from the right lane, or just changing lanes. There were a number of
“failure to yield the right of way” collisions where someone on the side street did not
yield properly to someone on the main street. In any case, the Green and Seneca
Intersection Bulb-out project, which will be bid for 2015 construction should help temper
the crash rate by giving motorists better sight lines for the cross street and by slowing
the traffic on the main street.
Emergency Response:
I believe the Bike Boulevards can co-exist with emergency response needs. If the
interest is not so much on traffic diversion or traffic calming, but rather on crossing the
busy streets, then I don’t see a major issue with emergency response. I understand
Chief Parsons’ interest to fully see what is coming and not get “incrementalized.” I think
it would be fair to say that along Plain Street, we would pursue traffic control at Green
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
7
and Seneca (which may actually benefit IFD, especially if we move forward with signal
pre-emption one day) and those we will coordinate with the Fire Department on
anything else. I could imagine looking into some traffic calming devices such as speed
pillows that allow for general traffic calming without having an impact on emergency
response. I could imagine a future interest in traffic diversion, but outside of the critical
emergency response zone from Green to Buffalo Streets. In any case, I am hearing a
genuine recognition of the Fire Department’s concerns and a willingness to work with
them for any future enhancements. Based on this, I do not see a significant conflict
between the Bike Boulevard treatments and emergency response operations”.
Commissioner Morache responded to the concern raised by Fire Chief Parsons about
2-way car traffic and bike traffic on Plain Street, and the conflict it will cause for
bicyclists. He noted that due to the parking on both sides of the street, vehicle speeds
are extremely low in those areas. He feels there is a definite need to educate bicyclists
that zipping around parked vehicles is dangerous, and won't really save a lot of time. He
expressed his support for Transportation Engineer Logue’s comments.
Commissioner Jenkins noted that she lives in the area of the proposed Bicycle
Boulevard on Plain Street. She sees a lot and travels there a lot; she also has a big
vehicle which can't make turns at the involved intersections if there is another vehicle at
the intersection. She feels that if there is also a bicyclist there it will be dangerous and
they will go onto the sidewalk; which then creates a hazard for both the bicyclist and any
pedestrians that may be on the sidewalk. In addition, it is illegal for anyone, except
children 10 years of age and under, to ride their bicycle on the sidewalk. She is very
concerned about safety, and feels the first proposed Bicycle Boulevard route would be
safer -- unless parking is removed from one side of Plain Street.
Commissioner Warden asked whether, when developing this plan, other streets such as
Albany and Geneva had been considered for the north-south route through the city. He
noted that Albany Street is wide enough that meters could be removed on one side of
the street which could be turned into a bike lane. Has that been discussed?
Transportation Engineer Logue responded that there are a lot of options for a north-
south route through the city. The city wanted a quiet, comfortable street to encourage
those people that might not bike to bike. Geneva and Albany Streets carry too much
traffic - especially Albany Street. For a Bicycle Boulevard the city wanted a street that
would stay under 3,000 vehicles per day; they also wanted to stay away from bike
lanes.
Commissioner Goldsmith noted that he rides all these streets and confronts all the
things that Commissioner Jenkins has spoken about; he is also very sensitive to the
needs of the fire department. However, when fire apparatus are in emergency mode,
they will be pretty successful in getting bicyclists out of the way, and he is not sure if the
presence of bikes will make that worse. In addition, the city of Ithaca is trying to give
bicyclists an improved status as they share the streets with vehicles.
Transportation Engineer Logue explained that the proposed Bicycle Boulevard is one of
the city’s few infrastructure projects that will have a lot of public outreach, education,
and encouragement through the local schools. In addition, those people who drive the
streets proposed for the Bicycle Boulevard are the people who have kids in those
schools so the educational component will be very important for both students and
parents.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
8
Commissioner Darling stated that he doesn't like the left hand turn on Buffalo Street
because it is not very safe. He would encourage staff to work on the concerns that have
been raised about the use of Plain Street, and expressed his support for the proposed
Plain Street route for the Bicycle Boulevard.
Mayor Myrick stated that he would echo Commissioner Darling’s comments; don't
remove the parking, and see how it goes.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows:
Ayes (5) Myrick, Morache, Goldsmith, Warden, Darling
Nays (1) Jenkins
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Creeks, Bridges, and Parks:
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Morache
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works has undertaken a project to
rehabilitate Lake Street Bridge over Fall Creek, and
WHEREAS, the project for the rehabilitation of the Lake Street Bridge Over Fall Creek,
P.I.N. 375534 (“the Project”) is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code as
administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that provides for
reimbursement of up to 80% of expenditures incurred by the City for rehabilitation of the
bridge, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca established Capital Project #791 for the Project in the
amount of $1,464,250, and
WHEREAS, Department of Public Works Staff recommends Lake Street Public Park
safety improvements and aesthetic enhancements (“Enhancements”) to the existing
public park located at the southeast corner of Lake Street Bridge over Fall Creek, and
WHEREAS, the Enhancements are not included in the project budget and is not eligible
for reimbursement by the FHWA, and
WHEREAS, the estimated additional cost to implement the Enhancements is $195,000,
and
WHEREAS, the Enhancements will be eligible for funding from various sources, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works has received approval for $30,000 in
matching funds from Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency-Community Development Block
Grant, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works can charge a portion of eligible costs
against the City’s Sidewalk Program, and
WHEREAS, the Enhancements will be eligible to apply for funding from Tompkins
County Tourism Capital Grant program in 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works authorizes Staff to undertake said
enhancements as part of Lake Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project, and be it further
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
9
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Work hereby recommends that
Common Council to increase Capital Project #791, Lake Street Bridge Rehabilitation
Project, by $195,000 for a total project authorization of $1,659,250.
Alderperson Fleming reported that this item was on the agenda at the November 19,
2014 City Administration Committee meeting, and it passed; she voted in support of it.
However, Commissioner McGonigal voted against it because of the budget which was
just approved; he is extremely concerned about money being spent by the City, and
adding to its expenses for 2015.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Discussion Items:
Approval of Stormwater User Fee Credits for Stormwater Utility Law - will be
voted on at the next meeting of the Board (December 8, 2014) – Discussion Only
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2014, Common Council adopted a local law authorizing the
creation of a Stormwater Utility and the Establishment of a Stormwater User Fee,
creating a new Chapter 283 of the City Code, entitled “Stormwater Utility”, and
WHEREAS, the Stormwater User Fee charged for a lot is based on the amount of
impervious surface area on the lot, and
WHEREAS, Section 283-2(C)(1) of the City Code allows eligible owners to file an
application contesting the calculation of impervious surface area on their lot, and
WHEREAS, Section 283-3 of the City Code authorizes Stormwater User Fee Credits for
those practices or structures that reduce the quantity and/or improve the quality of
runoff from eligible properties and are included on a list of “Approved Stormwater User
Fee Credits,” to be established by the Board of Public Works and maintained by the
Superintendent of Public Works, and
WHEREAS, Section 283-3(E) requires an eligible property owner to apply for
Stormwater User Fee Credits in a form that is satisfactory to the Superintendent, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works establishes the following list of Approved
Stormwater User Fee Credits, to be updated by the Board from time to time:
Treatment Quality Credits
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
2010 Stormwater Design Manual Reference
Section
Rain Garden 5.3.7
Green Roof 5.3.8
Stormwater Planter 5.3.9
Porous Pavement 5.3.11
Bioretention (F-5) 6.4
Quantity Attenuation Credits
Stormwater Pond 6.1
Stormwater Wetland 6.2
Stormwater Infiltration 6.3
Stormwater Filters 6.4
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
10
Open Channel (O-1) 6.5
, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works approves the attached “Stormwater User
Fee Revision/Credit Application” as a form by which owners may:
contest the calculation of impervious area on their lot under 283-2(C)(1), and
apply for Stormwater User Fee Credits under 283-3, in a manner that is
satisfactory to the Superintendent under 283-3(E), and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works establishes Application Fees to pay for a
portion of the staff time and processing costs involved in reviewing applications in the
amount of $______ for Part 1 of the application or $_____ for both Parts 1 and 2 of the
application, and be it further
RESOLVED, That no approved credit shall take effect prior to January 1, 2015.
Superintendent Thorne explained that the Stormwater Utility Law was approved by
Common Council in August 2014. The law authorizes Stormwater User Fee Credits for
those practices or structures that reduce the quantity and/or improve the equality of
runoff from eligible properties, and are included on a list of “Approved Stormwater User
Fee Credits, to be established by the Board of Public Works and maintained by the
Superintendent of Public Works. He stated that now the Board needs to decide how the
city wants to implement the credit program. The above resolution that was included with
the agenda packet provides them with a means to do that. He noted that GIS is great
but not 100% accurate, and when properties are redeveloped it can affect the rates. He
further noted that property owners have the opportunity to take advantage of approved
mitigation measures from the list provided. The formula put forward in the Stormwater
Utility Law is summarized and reproduced at the top of page two of the application form,
which the public can use. They can print the form off, fill it out by hand or just fill in the
blanks online (except by doing the form online they can only fill in the blanks that the
city wants them to). After that, city staff will review the application, approve it or not with
an area for explanation – if needed. He has been working with the Controller's office to
develop the best and easiest way to implement the program to determine what the
measure is where someone gets a 100% credit versus someone who gets something
less. People can also propose new credits that would have to be reviewed and
discussed by the Board in the future. In addition, the city’s new website will include
FAQ’s about the program for the public to access anytime. He stated that the maximum
credit for any property is 20%, and is geared more towards non-residential properties.
Environmental Engineer Gibson joined the Board for the discussion. He noted that in
response to the cost of the maximum 20% credit for every property that might be able to
receive one that it was discussed during the stakeholders’ meeting, and if everyone
applied it would be around $50,000 total.
Mayor Myrick stated that this piece of legislation is very popular at other municipalities,
and is on the cutting edge of sustainability and equity of costs. He thanked
Environmental Engineer Gibson and Supt. Thorne for their work on the legislation.
Environmental Engineer Gibson noted that there is a lot of interest in the law. He
recently received a phone call from Monroe County about it and other municipalities are
grappling with same issue on how to fund an unfunded mandate.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
11
Revisions to Chapter 157 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Entitled
"Commons"
City Clerk Holcomb and Commons Advisory Board Chair Lewis joined the Board for
discussion of this item. Commons Advisory Board members Ferguson and Brooks were
also present at the meeting. City Clerk Holcomb provided the following concept memo
for the Board’s information regarding the legislation:
History:
The original Commons legislation was adopted as an appendix to the City Code in 1975
as the "Commons Operations Manual and Vending Cart Regulations". As such, it was
'intended to be a guideline, not a law; it should be changed as necessary to respond to
experience, current needs and attitudes." It became difficult over the years as societal
behaviors started to change and there was no legislation that could be cited by
enforcement officials when violations to the original guidelines occurred. In 2005,
Chapter 157 entitled "Commons" was enacted for the purpose of providing a law that
could be enforced when needed so that Commons could be enjoyed for its many
purposes.
In 2015, the newly renovated Commons will once again be fully available to its many
users and the Commons Advisory Board, along with members of City staff, thought this
would be a great opportunity to update the legislation to reflect the infrastructure
changes and the significant investment that has been made in the community.
Intent:
This memo is intended to highlight any significant changes proposed in the legislation,
and to explain the rationale behind it.
§ 157-4. Creation of Board; responsibilities:
The Commons Advisory Board acknowledges that a membership of 14 members is too
difficult to maintain. They are proposing that the total membership be reduced to 9
members: 6 members to be appointed by the Mayor with approval of Common Council
(with a balance of people from within the business district and outside of it) and 3 voting
ex-officio members - the Director of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA), the City Clerk,
the Superintendent of Public Works or their designees.
§ 157-7. General Commons rules; signs, displays and temporary planters.
(2) Noise Permits:
The Commons Advisory Board would like the legislation to reflect what current practice
is. Weekday use of amplified sound is restricted to the lunch hour (11 am- 2 pm) and
after 5:00 pm so that business can be conducted comfortably within the buildings in
close proximity to the performance stage. For every hour of music, performers must
schedule 20 minutes of quiet time to give businesses and residents a brief reprieve from
the sound. Special events that have been permitted by the city's Special Event Team
are exempt from this provision.
(3) Requests for multiple events in a calendar year.
This provision is intended to prevent people from monopolizing the performance stage,
especially since we're down to one. It also prevents people from reserving the pavilion
and not using it, doing so to prevent other people congregating there.
§ 157-9. Vehicles on the Commons
The Commons Advisory Board and the City Clerk's Office would like to establish hours
that vehicles can be on the Commons without having permits issued to them. We
recognize that many businesses and renters need to have vehicles on the Commons;
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
12
however, we're seeking to balance that need with pedestrian safety concerns and not
allow the Commons to become a parking lot or an active street after regular business
hours. We also are concerned about vehicle weights and the strength of the paving
surface.
§ 157-12. Dogs and Other Animals
The Commons Advisory Board is in favor of allowing dogs that are licensed, adequately
restrained, and under the control of its owner, on the Commons. Currently, the only
dogs that are allowed on the Commons are dogs that belong to people who work or live
on the Commons. The dog owners are required to get a special permit that allows them
to walk the dogs on the Commons directly to their place of business/residence using the
closest entrance to the Commons.
Historically, allowing dogs on the Commons has been a controversial issue that seems
to be evenly split among those in favor and those opposed. Many people do not realize
that dogs are not allowed on the Commons and leave the area once they are made
aware. Many merchants view this as lost revenue generating opportunities. Other
people do not support dogs on the Commons because of aggressive dog concerns, and
irresponsible owners not cleaning up after their dogs. In the past, the DIA has offered to
provide doggie stations. The language used in this section was copied from another
chapter in the City Code.
§ 157-13. Posting of bills and notices
This section acknowledges the new information kiosks that will be installed near the
main entrances to the Commons. These kiosks will be maintained by the DIA.
§ 157-14. Newsracks
The Commons will have new news racks that allow for multiple publications within one
structure. The Commons Advisory Board will approve a policy for the use of the news
racks (i.e. if there is greater demand than supply, how the choices between publications
will be made) and the DIA will administer the placement and maintenance of the news
racks.
§ 157-15. Refuse
This language reflects the current practice put into place during the Commons
construction. The system appears to be working very well and the Commons Advisory
Board would like to see it continue.
§ 157-20. Street Performers
The city and Commons merchants have long held a love/hate relationship with street
performers. While they add a level of vibrancy to downtown, not all performers are
equally talented and constitute a nuisance. We've had several negative experiences
with performers and have not had legislation in place to address them. The Commons
Advisory Board considers the opportunity to perform on the Commons a privilege, and
would like to set expectations and requirements for people to follow.
Article Ill. Outdoor Dining
§ 157-20. Applications; rules of operation; permits; appeals.
Overall the city's outdoor dining program is very successful. One consistent issue we
have each year is the creep that occurs with tables and chairs on pedestrian walkways.
In addition to marking outdoor dining spaces, we would like to require restaurants to
post a certificate in their windows indicating that they have an outdoor dining permit.
This certificate would also include a sketch of the number of tables and the placement
of them that has been approved as part of the permit. Syracuse is currently using a
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
13
system like this and it appears to assist enforcement officers when they get complaints
from pedestrians. It makes the agreement made between the city and the restaurant
completely transparent.
Article IV. Mobile Vending:
§157-21 Mobile Vending Cart Regulations:
The Commons Advisory Board and members of city staff support new mobile cart
regulations that would require vendors to have battery-operated, self-contained,
wheeled carts. With the $15 million investment in downtown, we feel that it is important
that vendors on the Commons have a professional business appearance. They are
also designed to protect the surface of the Commons. These requirements were
borrowed from Burlington, Vermont and customized for our pedestrian mall.
City Clerk Holcomb stated that the Commons is under the jurisdiction of the Board of
Public Works, and its legislation should be as up-to-date as possible with the completion
of the renovation project in 2015. She further stated that the Commons Advisory Board
has spent a lot of time discussing each and every piece of the legislation; it will also go
to the Planning Committee and then on to Common Council for final approval. She then
went through each of the highlighted items in the memo with the Board. A question and
answer period followed. Items of particular discussion and board recommendation
included the following:
1. Work with Director of Parking Nagy to implement a paid parking permit for
business owners and residents on The Commons to drive onto and off of the Commons
during allowed times.
2. Alderperson and Liaison Fleming as well as Commissioners Jenkins and
Goldsmith do not support the allowance of dogs on the Commons.
3. Work on a program where business owners/tenants/merchants pay for recycling
in a similar way that trash removal is paid for.
4. Extensive discussion followed on the proposed maintenance guidelines for the
Commons, as outlined in the proposed legislation.
5. Board members expressed their support for fines and revocation of outdoor
dining agreements for repeated violations of placing tables and chairs outside of the
allowed outdoor dining area. They would also support the designation of an enforcing
agency and that would assist the Clerk’s Office in this effort.
City Clerk Holcomb invited Board members to provide additional feedback to her; she is
not sure the legislation needs to come back to the Board for further discussion. She will
work with Supt. Thorne, Director of Engineering West, and Parking Director Nagy to
update the language to reflect proposed changes. The Board supported the legislation
going on to the Planning and Economic Development Committee and Common Council;
they did not feel it needed to come back to them for further review and discussion.
Adjournment:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Svante L. Myrick
Information Management Specialist Mayor