HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2006-07-12BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. July 12, 2006
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Romanoff, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Executive Assistant – Grunder
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Supt. Gray stated that there was a substitute resolution for item 6A entitled “Sale of
Land to Rothschild’s Building – Resolution”
Mayor Peterson requested under either “Reports” or “Unfinished Business” a report on
the Golf Course sub-committee; or under Item 9 entitled “Creeks, Bridges, and Parks”
as a park.
No Board member objected.
Alderperson Coles asked for a preliminary discussion on a group as was suggested by
the Mayor be formed to study the intersection of Route 73, Route 13A, and Elm Street.
She stated that she believed that this group should include a member from the Board of
Public Works.
No Board member objected.
MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Peterson reported that last week or so the Board voted for a bid award for the
Dryden Road garage and it turns out that project is a sixty day project which runs right
into the beginning of the school year. The project would not start until as early as July
17th, so sixty days takes that into September, so we have the opening of the dorms at
Cornell University and a possible full closure of the garage. There has been a lot of
concern from residents and merchants in the Collegetown area. She has called a
special meeting for certain staff and certain affected City Council members for tomorrow
afternoon at 1:30 p.m. in the Second Floor large conference room. She has also invited
a select group from the community, especially the ones she heard directly from so far to
sit down with us and talk about the issues around the Dryden Road garage work, what
does it mean to shut it down completely, what does it look like with a partial closure and
so on. What are their concerns and how can they be addressed. She has had a good
response even with this very quick request for a meeting, a very high positive response
rate from people that have been invited so that will be held here tomorrow. She stated
that anyone from the Board that is interested is welcome to attend as well.
COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Jane Marcham, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board, to thank the Board for
reconsidering the traffic plan for the 200 block of North Aurora Street and also to
express her support, one again, for the proposed resolution on the Board’s agenda to
keep the block one way traffic.
Peter Houghton, Waterloo, New York. He informed the Board that he had traveled an
hour and half to come to this meeting and that he would ask the Mayor to give him five
minutes rather than three minutes. He stated that he grew up in Ithaca and attended
Ithaca public schools and graduated from Cornell University. He further stated that his
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 2
parents grew up in the City of Ithaca, and his great-grandparents grew up in the City. He
stated that his grandfather was a Third Ward democratic alderman for the City Council
back in the 1890’s; one great-grandfather was a City fireman, Company 3 and his
grandmother was the treasurer for Ithaca Savings and Loan. His grandfather was on the
Board of Directors for the Treman/King Company. He has a strong family history and
connection to the City of Ithaca for the last 125 years and he is here before the Board
today to speak about the condition of the City Cemetery. For the last 30 years, he has
visited the cemetery around Memorial Day to the family plot to plant flowers and to
groom it and clean it up. For the last, he’ll say dozen years, he has noticed a steady
decline in the condition of the cemetery grounds. The conditions have deteriorated to
the point where he feels compelled to speak out on this issue. He circulated
photographs to the Board to look at. What he found when he visited on the 4th of July
holiday were inexcusable conditions, three foot high weeds, brush, briars, brambles,
grapevines, washed out rutted highways, limbs and branches scattered about, litter and
trash. Upon returning home from the Holidays he went to the Ithaca phone directory to
see who he would contact to talk about the condition of the City cemetery. He found
numbers for dead animal complaints, illegal dumping complaints, pot hole complaints,
sidewalk complaints, smoking complaints and trash violations. He found nothing about
calling anyone for the cemetery. So he made several calls, trying to track down the
hierarchy of the cemetery care and finally found the chain of command and realized that
this Board has some powers in that chain, so that is why he is appearing before you to
day. The condition of the cemetery and you can see by the photos that are going
around, take your choice of adjectives, disgraceful, deplorable, shameful, and an
embarrassment to the City. He is a retired, licensed, professional engineer. His whole
career was with the New York State Department of Transportation for 35 years; 25
years was in public works operations, and maintenance, 10 years was in the office of
Legal Services. So, he is well aware and well versed in public works and he is very
experienced in road maintenance, drainage, vegetation control, policy making, project
development, public trust, public relations, deferred maintenance and neglect. What the
City has with the cemetery conditions in his opinion is neglect. It’s a breach of the public
trust and it’s a public relations powder keg. The occupants, if we can call them that,
they were Ithaca, they founded Ithaca, they shaped Ithaca, they molded Ithaca, they
developed Ithaca. They were the attorneys, the physicians, the businessmen, the
alderman, the councilmen, the craftsman, the tradesman, the common folk, they are all
up there. They chose Ithaca as their final resting place with the expectation that the
cemetery would be perpetually cared for in a reasonable, decent condition and it hasn’t.
The City owes these folks respect and dignity and it just isn’t happening, just look at the
pictures or drive up there yourselves. He has talked to Rick Ferrel, and he has talked to
a Mr. Hillman, the City Forester, and there is no disagreement. They are all well aware
of the conditions, and what he is talking about is not rocket science here. The City has
all the resources necessary to maintain that cemetery, to restore it, to rehabilitate it,
they have simply chosen not to do it. It’s sixteen acres, we’re not talking about Arlington
National Cemetery with 700 acres to maintain or even the City golf course with dozens
of acres, or Stewart Park; we’re talking sixteen acres. That’s all the has to be taken care
of up there. His time is up, he wanted to bring this issue to the Board’s attention
because this is the time of year that you start developing your budget here in the City.
He requested to be put on the agenda for next week’s meeting. At that time he will bring
to you a three year plan that he will develop that will be what he considers a practical
solution to the conditions up there. He is willing to meet with any sub-committee, or any
group that you feel would be a productive meeting to lend his experience and his
expertise and his thoughts as to how this cemetery can be brought back to what it
should be. Thank you for your time. He asked if he was correct in saying that, is he on
the agenda for next week? He asked Debbie to place him there, is that the appropriate
channel to request that?
Mayor Peterson responded that was the first time she heard it, she and the
Superintendent usually put that agenda together;
Mr. Houghton responded okay, and that he requested it on a telephone call to be placed
on next week’s agenda so that he would have more time to present an action plan and if
that’s not the appropriate vehicle to make the request, he will make it formally now; or
he can send it to the Mayor in writing. He is not sure how you conduct business here.
Mayor Peterson stated that the Mayor has been out of town until 4 pm today and so she
has not had an opportunity to talk to him about the agenda and she is not sure what
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 3
everything looks like, but generally yes, that is the type of meeting, a Committee of the
Whole meeting, where we have people come and give us presentations, it’s a little more
informal than this voting meeting. So we will probably, get back to you quite soon about
a yes or no on that. She has not seen the agenda yet and since she doesn’t think there
are any other speakers, she only had two cards and she doesn’t think there are. The
next part of the meeting is “Response to the Public”. Does anyone have response to the
public?
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC
Commissioner Romanoff stated that there is a person at Cornell University who has
tried almost single handedly some of the things you are talking about. Her name is Ms.
Barbara Ebert, she is at the Department of Planning there. She has had, first of all, she
has led tours of the cemetery to acquaint people with some of the interesting characters
that are there and some of the architectural aspects of tombstones, some of them are
very interesting. She has also organized occasionally citizens clean up. She is a person
you might want to talk to as she has some interesting perspectives and the last time she
talked to her was overwhelmed by the amount of work that needs to be done there. She
has been very involved in that cemetery.
Mr. Houghton responded that he has noticed that the Fireman’s plot is very well
groomed, so he presumes that there are some retired fireman that must go up and
maintain that particular plot. The Jewish plot seems to be well maintained, but the
majority of it is not. Whether it’s the roads or what have you. He would add, that in a
final comment, that the citizens that are there, paid a fee for burial, the City sold them.
This isn’t something like Stewart Park or Washington Park where it is a general purpose
park. People paid a fee to be buried there with the expectation that they would receive
services for that fee, much as you receive services for your water; a special fee that was
paid and it’s just not happening, and that is a breach of the public’s trust. Thank you.
Commissioner Schlather stated that Mr. Houghton’s comments are well taken and he
thinks that we should, he is just curious and maybe someone here can enlighten us or
maybe we could incorporate this into a further discussion. Number one, what are the
resources that we are currently putting towards the maintenance of the cemetery.
Number two he is interested and intrigued about the notion of the payment that is made
and how much of that is allocated to perpetual maintenance, and how much of that is
simply initial cost, so he would be curious as to how we handle that and then thirdly, and
he thinks this is where Mr. Houghton’s offer he thinks is well made as with many of the
services in the City, we are short handed and always willing to entertain the use of
citizen groups or whatever you want to call it and he does not think that is bad idea. He
thinks that clearly this is an important part of our heritage and he thinks that it would
make a whole lot of sense if we could enlist those that are interested in performing
those services in combination with the resources that we do have; similar to what we’re
doing, for instance, on the Waterfront Trail and you know clean up parks and what have
you. There are ways to deal with this, so he would invite that discussion and honestly, if
Mr. Houghton is willing to come back next week, if there is anyway that we could put it
on the agenda for next week to get this thing going, he would encourage the Mayor and
the Superintendent to do so.
Mayor Peterson stated that she simply has not talked with the Supt. to see what else is
on it, but just one more thing, If you haven’t yet contacted Danny Wheeler, if that name
has not been already given to you. He has already contact her office with various offers
of help. He is a mover and shaker of Sons of Union Veterans, and they have sections
in the cemetery that he cares very much about and he knows how many lawn mowers
are up in the storage garage in the cemetery, and he has volunteered his help in the
past, so he is quite entrusted to the cemetery himself.
Mr. Houghton responded that with volunteer groups which they used with the DOT for
years, are fine for litter pick up and trash pick up, but they are not going to cut down
trees, and trim trees, and so there is a necessity for city employment involvement up
there besides volunteer groups.
Mayor Peterson responded absolutely. Thank you.
Supt. Gray stated that he thinks the Green Street garage item will take a fair amount
next week, but after he has a chance to lay that out, he will have a chance to call Mr.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 4
Houghton as to whether it’s next week or two weeks after that would be the two obvious
times. It does seem appropriate to place him on one of the upcoming agendas and he
will work it out.
BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT:
Sale of Land to Rothschild’s Building – Resolution
Moved by Commissioner Schlather; Seconded by Commissioner Chapman
WHEREAS, the City has received a request from the owner of the Rothchilds Building
to purchase a narrow, L-shaped strip of City-owned land between that property and the
right-of-way of South Aurora Street or its associated sidewalk area (a portion of which
land is marked as “Proposed Surplus Property” on the attached, annotated map, dated
July 12, 2006), in conjunction with that owner’s intended redevelopment of the adjacent
site; and
WHEREAS, the land in question is crossed by at least one utility line (namely, a storm
sewer pipeline draining a portion of South Aurora Street to a main under Green Street)
and is bordered by retaining walls on or near the easterly and northerly sides, and is
partially occupied by a City bus shelter; and
WHEREAS, the land sought for purchase is in close proximity to the existing, 66-foot-
wide right-of-way for South Aurora Street, and it is not and cannot be known at this time
whether there may be a need, in the future, to widen that street or the sidewalk adjacent
to it; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated that continued City
ownership of the above-described portion of said strip of land (as delineated on the
attached map) is not crucial to departmental operations, provided that any conveyance
thereof is conditioned upon:
1. the relocation of any utility line(s) now existing upon or beneath such land
and associated easement therefore, to a location acceptable to the Superintendent of
Public Works, or other arrangement acceptable to the Superintendent which provides
for adequate and perpetual access to and maintenance of such line(s), all at no
additional cost to the City as a result of the conveyance or future development of the
land;
2. the transfer to any grantee of all responsibility (including cost) for
maintaining or replacing the retaining walls now existing along or in proximity to the
easterly and northerly boundaries of such land, and for restoring to grade level with the
sidewalk any areas lying between the existing City sidewalk/plaza area and the exterior
walls of any building constructed on the site by the grantee;
3. a written agreement binding the grantee, at the grantee’s sole cost, to
assume responsibility for the demolition of the existing bus shelter which occupies a
portion of such land, and, if such demolition is to occur prior to the construction of a
replacement shelter (by others), to provide for temporary, covered seating comparable
to that available in the existing shelter, in a form and location acceptable to the City; and
4. the maintenance of public access to the stairway to the Green Street
parking facility, from the South Aurora Street sidewalk/plaza area; and
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby determines that continued City
ownership of a portion of the land sought for purchase, which portion is shown on the
afore-mentioned map (with the easterly boundary running roughly parallel to the west
curb of South Aurora Street and the northerly boundary running along the inside of a
retaining wall and as extended easterly), is not necessary, from a public works
standpoint, provided that the four conditions set forth above are attached to any
conveyance and made binding upon the grantee and the grantee’s heirs, administrators,
successors or assigns; and it is further
RESOLVED, That the Board hereby recommends that, in any case, space be reserved
by the City for an urban-scale sidewalk (approximately 13 feet curb-to-building face in
adjacent blocks), adjacent to (i.e., easterly of) the land in question; and it is further
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 5
RESOLVED, That the Board requests that its concern about maintaining appropriate
and safe lines of sight for those northbound on South Aurora Street, in the sudden
transition from residential buildings to the downtown core, be addressed in any sales
contract and/or site plan review process for development of the site in question; and it is
further
RESOLVED, That this determination be submitted to the Common Council for its review
and consideration of a declaration that the land in question is surplus property, with
certain conditions regarding the afore-mentioned public works functions; and it is further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works requests that the staff of the Department
be involved in the development of any conditions which are to be attached to the
conveyance of the land in question from City ownership.
Supt. Gray stated that the City is at a point where it is trying to make this decision. He
further stated that he has been asked to get the Board’s recommendation so he would
put a relatively simplified resolution in the packets. The City Attorney has picked up
several of his points, and a couple that were in the earlier discussions, which he had not
included, but which are important and back when you started the discussions he has
thought of one more addition. He thinks that the City Attorney’s resolution provides a lot
of the detail of the background that since the Board really makes this recommendation
to Common Council, Common Council is the only body that can dispose of land while
the Board of Public Works can acquire land for public purpose related to its charge in
the Charter, it can only recommend this position through Common Council and Council
is the only body that can actually dispose of it. So, although they get to choose the
conditions, we’re just trying to advise them of things that bear on our ability to do work
or things as we would like to see them, so that was the resolutions’ intent to try to
provide information to Common Council.
Mayor Peterson stated that it looks like people are still reading it because they just
received it today, so she gave the Board a couple more minutes to finish reading the
substitute resolution before moving forward. She stated that there is a changed map
and asked if anyone would like to be walked through the changes from the original map.
The map was included in agenda packets.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he was working from a map that was provided to him
by the Planning Department yesterday. His understanding that the proposal would be to
have the new boundary for what he will call the “Rothschild” lot be extended further to
the east closer to Aurora Street and roughly paralleling the west curb of Aurora Street
going up to a point on the east side of the existing bus shelter and then heading straight
back to the wall of the Rothschild building, passing through the bus shelter and then
along the inside of a retaining wall that is now in place there. So this would add a small
strip of land to the east and to the north to land currently owned by owners of the
Rothschild’s building. One thing that he was not sure about, he recalls that the easterly
line was to roughly parallel the curb, but you’ll see the curb has a little dent in it there,
there is a place where it angles and he didn’t put that angle in the boundary, it would be
simpler to draw just a straight line. That’s about what he knows, so the effect of this new
line would be to make available slightly less city land than was proposed.
Commissioner Schlather stated just so everyone knows where this map comes from, we
may all recall that this issue was before us a few months ago and at that time the
request was to basically run along that concrete or excuse me to run from the point, the
existing starting point at the southeast corner of the parcel, but then run directly into the
right of way as shown on this proposed surplus map. At that time during discussion,
there were certain Commissioners, he knows he and Commissioner Wykstra went
down and looked at the physical site and took measurements and he went back several
times. His view of it was that and his concern was that we preserve enough of the right
of way to maintain the word “urban scale” isn’t quite, those aren’t his words, but that he
thinks makes sense, to maintain a widening more panoramic approach, you know for
pedestrians as we approach the Commons, as opposed to what then is a fairly narrow
sidewalk and at some places it’s less than eight feet wide, which is more narrow than
the sidewalks that you see in other parts of Aurora Street, both east and west sides in
the next block up and even the next two blocks up. So, the thought was that we had to
at least preserve that purposes of pedestrians safety and access and what have you.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 6
So, he actually had expressed those concerns publicly, the Planning Director had met
he thinks with some of the members of this Board in separate meetings to try to give
more background, and at such a meeting, he expressed his concerns as he has
expressed publicly and he suggested at that time that if it were, the boundary were
more consistent with what is before us then that might be something that he could
actually support and he thinks that is true. He thinks that this preserves the public what
he thinks are the public interests in this right of way which are that it be a broadening
towards the Commons as opposed to a narrowing and he is not commenting on and he
hopes that in the site plan review process that there will be some of those same kinds of
first floor set backs further made a part of that because he thinks that then would be
more consistent with the design of the former Rothschild building where the restaurant
is currently located. It has that overhang and set back so he is not suggesting at all what
the appropriate design of the building should be, that is not really within our the reach of
this group, but he is thinking simply in terms of the public right of way, this seems to
meet concerns that he has had. So, he is willing to support this, but he hastens to add
and he doesn’t know how anyone includes this anywhere, he is not at all suggesting
that the site plan review process should not be used to do an even better job of keeping
this horizon open in terms of the openness, in other words, the first floor setback.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she wanted to thank her colleagues
Commissioners Schlather and Wykstra for working extra time on this and she thinks that
the solution that is worked out here is better than what we saw before, much better and
she does think of it with a good design review in addition to what we’re doing here
tonight would make this an apter solution.
Supt. Gray stated that he has been at this long enough to believe that somebody else
gets to make the decision. He usually indicate that when we sell land that we are
actually are using for purposes, it’s done for a development purpose. He feels that there
should be a reverter clause in the agreement which would bring the land back to the
City if the land is not used for the development for which it was sold and which was the
reason for which we were willing to give it up and he usually thinks that a two year
period is adequate for these things to take place.
Mayor Peterson questioned whether two years would be adequate?
Director of Planning and Development Van Cort stated that it would take five years.
Supt. Gray stated that he knows full well what he is saying and the two years of course,
this would be something that would be negotiable, the Board is just making
recommendations, but he thinks there ought to be a reverter clause and he thinks that it
should put the land owner on notice to the effect that the only reason we are selling this,
we’re using it and the only reason we’re selling this is they proposed something that is
acceptable to us. Otherwise, we would like to go on using it or will hold the cards until
some later date and so he was going to suggest if the Board was interested, he might
add a fifth item, it would just be a condition for Council to consider with the inclusion of a
reverter clause and he said two years, if not developed as proposed to solicit this sale.
He is sure that Council and the City Attorney will have things to say after they get that
recommendations. That is the form that he was suggesting to the Board.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would consider that a friendly amendment.
Mayor Peterson stated that she does not. She thinks that it is fairly substitive and should
have a separate vote as an amendment. She is playing lawyer tonight even though the
City Attorney is sitting right next to her.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that Roberts Rules of Order don’t officially recognize
friendly amendments; all he knows is that it is customary in many minds. The Chair can
certainly rule here.
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded
RESOLVED, That the resolution be amended to add a fifth condition to follow number
four which would read:
“4. a reversion of title to the City if the land is not used for its currently proposed
development within three years.”
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 7
Mayor Peterson stated that she doesn’t think we can say currently proposed, we really
don’t have a currently proposed project and she is not sure how the land is going to be
conveyed because we’re not doing, the City Council cannot sell this to a person, she
doesn’t know if we have to turn this over to the IURA or otherwise, it has to go to an
auction she would think for surplus land, so she doesn’t think anything of specificity
really should be tied in. Yes, it’s true someone out there has an idea, but we can’t by
law we can’t just be turning this over to a specific person without going through proper
channels, either IURA or an open bid.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that was his understanding.
Mayor Peterson stated so your resolution is tied into a specific piece,
Commissioner Schlather stated how about we do this, may I modify it please?
Mayor Peterson stated yes.
Commissioner Schlather stated:
“5. a reverter of title to the City if the land is not used as approved upon site plan
review within three years of conveyance by the City”
So if they convey it to the IURA, it will eventually have to make its way back to the City
because we want a reverter of title to the City. So it would have to go back through
IURA. But it gives three years and obviously it allows some wiggle room so that the
actual conveyance from the City to whomever can be delayed as those who wish to
wiggle want to delay it.
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the resolution be amended to add a fifth condition to follow number
four which would read:
“5. a reverter of title to the City if the land is not used as approved upon site plan
review within five years of conveyance by the City”
Commissioner Chapman stated that he respects Commissioner Schlather and Supt.
Gray’s opinion on this, but he also looks at as, as being somewhat unnecessary as a
Board we’re trying to make sure that the sale of this property does not infringe on our
right of way, the utilities that we have, the public access, etc. and really to attempt to
affect the design of the building or the timing of the building of the building, he does not
think is what we are here for. He thinks that Common Council and the Mayor would be
the ones to hear Supt. Gray’s comments on this. So, personally, he thinks we should
just go with the motion that we have here and say that we don’t need the land and leave
it up to Council for timing.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated that very few projects especially
projects in downtown happen in three years from date of purchase. That’s a really tight
time frame, you know from being involved in dozens of these things, they take their own
time, they are very difficult to do and he can understand that you might want to put
some restrictions on it, but three years is just too tight. He would say five years at a
minimum.
Commissioner Schlather responded it’s the concept and he would go with five years,
that can be a friendly amendment, may it,
Mayor Peterson responded if it’s okay with your seconder
Commissioner Wykstra stated that it was fine.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was other discussion on that amendment?
This is a reversion of the title to the city if the land is not used as approved upon site
plan review within five years of conveyance by the city.
A Vote on the Amending Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 8
Ayes (6) Schlather, Chapman, Wykstra, Dotson, Romanoff, Jenkins
Nays (1) Peterson
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Mayor Peterson stated that she bought Commissioner Chapman’s argument, but then
you voted the other way, but that’s alright. Discussion on the main motion as amended?
Commissioner Schlather stated that there was one word that he injected as he was
reading it, but he would ask that it be included and that is in the third Resolved, where it
says about maintaining appropriate lines of site, he injected the word safe because he
thinks from our standpoint that is a concern that these are safe, it’s a matter of safety
issues.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was any objection by the seconder?
Commissioner Wykstra stated no.
Mayor Peterson asked if there was further discussion?
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
HIGHWAYS, STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS:
One Current Year and Unused 20,000 lb Hook-Lift System w/Flatbed Body -
Resolution
By Commissioner Romanoff: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, bids were received on June 22, 2006, for one new 20,000 lb. Hook-Lift
System w/Flatbed Body, and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the bids and recommends that the Board of Public
Works award the bid to the lowest bidder, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards the bid of the new 20,000
lb. Hook-Lift System w/Flatbed Body to STS Truck Equipment and Trailer Sales, 3496
Court Street, Syracuse, NY 13206 for their total bid of $21,361.00, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board authorizes the Assistant Superintendent of Public Works to
enter into a contract with STS Truck Equipment and Trailer Sales for the Hook-Lift
System.
Commissioner Romanoff asked what is a new and unused equipment is that overstating
or is she is missing something.
Asst. Supt. Ferrel responded that the terminology should be current year and unused.
Supt. Gray stated that the City does get people who propose demonstrators that they
regard as new or other similar pieces of equipment which are not literally unused.
Commissioner Chapman asked for a quick description of what this thing is and why we
need it.
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded that it is a replacement for existing dump truck and we
needed a truck that would serve two purposes, getting into small streets and under
areas with low profile and this has a feature where almost like a roll off dumpster, you
can just leave the dump body on the ground and fill it with the spoils, working a small
street, pick it back up or bring it down to the yard and leave it there and have the guys
clean and pick up tires that is under a garage structure and then load it back on. It could
also serve to bring back and forth with the flat bed there a lot of our small equipment,
our mowers and such to different sites so it was an ideal replacement for a five yard
dump.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 9
Commissioner Chapman asked if there was a reason we didn’t get the alternate, the
dumpster that goes with it. Is that something we currently have?
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded that was something that we didn’t anticipate the price on
it being the size it was and we can go with a flatbed this year and put it in the budget
next year for the five yard box.
Commissioner Chapman asked if the flatbed is usable without
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded yes its usable to hook and lift the small equipment and
also tow a pipe trailer.
Mayor Peterson asked if this would be done under capital projects?
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded no, it was under the normal vehicle budget. Don Parker
originally thought it would be on State bid but it turned out this body turned out not to be
on State bid so he had to generate a separate bid.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
PARKING AND TRAFFIC:
Proposed Conversion of 300 Block North Aurora Street to Two-Way – Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
WHEREAS, individuals and members of the Board of Public Works have questioned
why the 300 Block of North Aurora Street (between Court and Buffalo) is about to be
converted to accommodate two-way traffic following the installation of a trunk sewer
line, and
WHEREAS, a review of records and minutes reveals that staff was directed to make the
conversion in October 2003 as part of consideration of a resolution to convert two
blocks of North Cayuga Street to two-way traffic, and
WHEREAS, Planning Staff has reviewed environmental finding statements associated
with the Downtown Development Plan which do not contain any requirement to make
the conversion, and they have no staff recommendation supporting the conversion, and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Staff has reviewed the traffic studies associated with the
development plan and has no staff recommendation supporting the conversion, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works has reviewed its resolution of October 15,
2003, which directed staff to convert the one block of Aurora Street between Court and
Buffalo to two-way traffic and rescinds that directive at this time, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs staff to monitor traffic in this and
other areas impacted by the Downtown Development Plan in order to formulate
recommendations for changes as they are needed to mitigate anticipated impacts or in
order to improve or maintain safety on streets and in intersections.
Traffic Engineer Logue stated that as he wrote in his memo that was included in agenda
packets that he doesn’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other. If it doesn’t
happen, he doesn’t think that it is going to be a negative thing. If it does happen, I don’t
think it will be a negative thing. He thinks we would probably see some very small
benefit, perhaps residents of Fall Creek that want to go to Collegetown, they’ve got
another way to get there. Then again, they could have used Tioga Street, so he doesn’t
really see a large benefit coming out of this, perhaps a small benefit, but he is barely
ambivalent or neutral on the matter to be honest. The other questions about extending it
any further south, he thinks that opens up into a broader conversation, but that one
block, he does not have a strong opinion on one way or the other.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she is kind of interested in having that larger
conversation about the next block, but maybe not right now. Her question right now is, if
we direct you via Bill to monitor traffic in this and other areas impacted, etc. what that
might look like and can you tell us a little bit what might come out of that.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 10
Traffic Engineer Logue responded that the staff could continue to do traffic counting and
monitoring that way and see if it keeps in line with the projections of the Downtown
Development environmental impact statement and some of the analysis that lead
people to looking at the conversion of the street to two-way. Otherwise, probably be
aware on our own and be aware of any complaints or requests that we get from people
about existing conditions is probably where he would start as far as monitoring things.
Supt. Gray stated that the Downtown Development Plan looks at multiple years and not
all of the development is in place. Some of it is, some of it is proposed and some of it
may come. There are a series of impacts that develop from that. There are a series of
intersections whose level of service would degrade as the development occurs. There
are proposals for what that might need, turning lanes or removing parking and other
impacts that will occur. Since they are not all in place and as Traffic Engineer Logue has
said, there don’t seem to be immediate benefits now, there may be other solutions later.
Staff looked at it and he did go and he thinks the Board saw an e-mail that contained
the questions that the Board asked that day and Traffic Engineer Logue has told you his
recommendation which is kind of a non recommendation and the Planning Office
basically came back with the same reaction, there are things that will have to be
addressed as things occur, they are not in place now, the impacts this either leaving it
alone or changing it does not seem to be great with the possible exception of one
resident who and perhaps others who may be concerned with how this would work and
it’s focused impacts on a city wide basis there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to go
forward with it now. So, we’re neutral on it and there does not seem to be any
obligation other than the one that the Board passed which directed staff to do it, so that
is our obligation and this was our chance to review it.
Alderperson Coles stated that although it would make a little sense to change the
direction of one block before there is sufficient study of what this might mean, she does
want to say that she has heard from residents asking for a two-way direction here
saying that it would facilitate their ability to get around town. Now, she is not sufficiently
versed with what that would entail, so she couldn’t really speak any more than that but
there are residents it would appear on both sides of the issue so she is glad there is
going to be further consideration for what this does entail for the City; especially since
all the construction has not yet been finished.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she agrees with what Alderperson Coles was just
saying. She thinks historically speaking, she has lived in Ithaca long enough that when
we made some street changes to one way from two-way or vice versus the ruckus that
it raises is hardly worth what this would solve right now she thinks. She thinks the idea
of studying as the City develops and other traffic is generates and moves differently
we’ll be in a better place to decide this in the future than we are right now.
Commissioner Schlather stated to add to that, given that there seems to be such
institutional ambivalence at this point in terms of recommendations. The default is to
leave things where they are. In addition, though, now you can go to the less reliable
source of imperical evidence and that is the anecdotal stuff and he thinks that when you
look anecdotally at the traffic that is already jammed up on Buffalo Street between
Aurora and Cayuga that both pre-existed and even more so post exist the change to
two-way traffic on Cayuga. There are many, many times and only because he can see it
from his office when A. there are either accidents at Buffalo and Cayuga or more
problematic he thinks there are large trucks that stop to off-load at the Oasis. They are
always sticking out so that even though there is an attempt to get a so-called left turn
lane for these west bound Buffalo Street traffic, there really is not enough room for there
to be in effect a tractor trailer sticking out in the road, an east bound piece of traffic, a
west bound turning south plus a west bound piece of traffic, there just isn’t enough room
in the road, so it gets all jammed up and people get upset so you have that issue there,
you have again, anecdotally, less reliable than institutional but nevertheless at this point
the only thing we’ve got, the intersection of Tioga and Buffalo because of the court now,
and honestly because of the parking garage, and because of the hotel, there is a lot
more traffic coming in and out of the parking garage, there is a lot of traffic trying to
make a left turn, the police cars are parked on both sides to get in and out of the court
on Buffalo, it’s just a log jam and so anything to ease that and one way to ease that
would be to not dump more potential traffic onto that segment of Buffalo which would
come from Aurora Street if we were two-way on that last block of Aurora rather than
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 11
traffic coming from the north would have to find its way over to Cayuga and around the
Commons by going down Court Street to Cayuga. He feels that leave sleeping dogs lie
at this time. Obviously subject to further studies, but if we’re going to re-open then he
thinks we’re going to have to do the whole shot on Aurora Street all the way through to
South Hill. He thinks that its either got to be leave it the way it is or figure out if it makes
sense to go all the way through and then go all the way through but anything short of
that is just going to concentrate the problem in a smaller area, which is basically Buffalo
Street, Seneca Street, as opposed to Court, Buffalo, and Seneca.
Mayor Peterson asked the City Attorney if she has to recuse herself because she lives
next to Jane Marcham on Buffalo Street and they know that changing it to two-way is a
benefit to her, but and she thinks that it would ease the traffic on Tioga Street because
many of us trying to get up from Fall Creek or down University Avenue from Cayuga
Heights and trying to get back up Buffalo Street area, we have to go to Tioga Street.
She thinks that the main problem she has with the one-way is the extra gasoline use to
get around our town and this is really a big thing right now. It’s polluting, and it costs
more and it’s a lot extra start/stop on vehicles and that is something that she thinks alot
about. That’s one of her problems that she has with it, so she likes the conversion in
general to the two-way, but again, she doesn’t feel terribly strong one way or the other
because the preferred way was further to take it more than one block and there is that
phenomina when you come off a two way street and you’re facing two rows of traffic
coming into you, where that change over happens that is uncomfortable on both
Cayuga Street still and Aurora Street.
Supt. Gray stated that one way streets actually serve a purpose and if we get into this
discussion the cost of going to two-way in terms of providing turning lanes, eliminating
parking, doing other things and the levels of service at different intersections you might
begin to understand why, they make you uncomfortable but they are still a usable tool
and we don’t need to get into that tonight.
Mayor Peterson stated that she can see with streets like Green that are whole
highways, these are partially and you face and they’re not complete and its bothersome.
Commissioner Chapman stated that he basically agrees with the Mayor, he
understands Commissioner Schlather’s reservations, he is not sure he agrees or not. It
seems true that it is, to him, it isn’t going to be a big difference one way or the other but
the thing that keeps coming back to him is he would like to know what really would be
happening. It seems to him it makes sense to stay with the current situation for now and
maybe have the Traffic Engineer look into what the alternatives would be if we did make
a change and specifically how they would affect the neighborhoods with traffic flow.
Alderperson Coles stated that she is wondering if it might not be useful to set up a
precise time, say one year, when this Board will revisit this issue rather than leaving it
open end without a clear time when the decision would be revisited because she thinks
a conclusion should be arrived at as soon as possible so she doesn’t know if one year
makes sense, but that is what she would like to advise the Board to do.
Commissioner Dotson stated that was what she was thinking and wondering about
maybe adding words so that it says “it rescinds that directive at this time” and then she
wanted to ask Traffic Engineer Logue or Supt. Gray whoever can answer the question,
how long would it take you to come back with some meaningful options. You know
could you model this after a reasonable scale so that we can look at the impacts and
decide. She was thinking something more like two or three months, but she doesn’t
know so she would like to hear from staff.
Traffic Engineer Logue responded that one of the pieces of the modeling that actually
he doesn’t believe got done with the previous studies was the type of modeling our
transportation council does where they look at zone to zone travel and you can add a
link or take a link out. We did this with the Thurston Avenue bridge or the South Aurora
Street bridges. What happens if you take that link out, let’s look at how traffic
redistributes itself. The precision of the model and how much real good information that
is going to return to you on a one block segment of the whole downtown system, he
doesn’t know, but he would be willing to engage them in that conversation, but that
could be one piece of modeling or analysis that might be helpful to us to see,
anecdotally we might say we know the Mayor is going to use Aurora Street and not
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 12
Tioga Street to go home, but really over the whole system how many people are really
going to prefer to take that street versus another. That type of model we might be able
to get that, the previous modeling didn’t really get into that type of modeling so they
must have made some assumptions of how traffic would redistribute itself, the previous
studies are really focused more on specific operational issues once you’ve made the
assumption of how traffic might redistribute itself.
Commissioner Dotson asked whether the study should look at just this one block or two
blocks or three blocks because we’ve had a couple suggestions and if we did that would
Cayuga Street come in, just looking at the one-way system that is under our control.
Traffic Engineer Logue responded that he thought you’d probably want to do both things
to some extent. If you’re really going to look at the full extension of Aurora Street to two
way all the way down to State Street so that you could continue to make that left onto
East State Street and head up out of town that way or head straight up the hill up South
Hill. He thinks you’d want to look at transportation demand modeling or that zone to
zone type modeling and then of course you’d have to come back and look at the
specific intersections and say what does that mean at Seneca Street do you need a
right turn lane or what does that mean at East State Street do you need a left turn lane
there. The study that SRF and Associates that Steve Ferranti had done before said yes,
you’re going to need left turn lanes if you want to go all the way through and that means
you’re going to have to carve out the space somewhere, you either have to let go of
parking on the street in order to get a lane in there; or you’re going to have to cut back
your sidewalks and no one was really interested in either of those two things. Especially
at that block by Viva Tacqueria. So, the previous study said no, it’s not worth it. He
would say that it would probably make sense, that was a full five years ago he thinks to
go back and refresh our minds and re-read that study before we decide to commission
another one or spend an enormous amount of time on analysis, but to get back to the
details of what were the assumptions as far as the redistribution of traffic and the
specific operational characteristics of the intersection. We could do that maybe in a
matter of months and maybe get back to the transportation council about how long it
would take them to do that, but if you wanted to set that sort of timeline that seems
reasonable.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he had a question about modeling. When they do
the modeling do they actually require further survey, in other words measuring or what
have you or is it all computer generated?
Traffic Engineer Logue responded that usually you would do surveys as far as counting
cars, they either did new counts or had fairly recent counts for that last study.
Commissioner Schlather asked if staff were to do what is being requested by
Commissioner Dotson, would it require more survey work, more field work.
Traffic Engineer Logue responded yes, there would be some kind of follow up because
those counts now are at least a few years old if not five.
Commissioner Schlather stated that his concern then with that is that he thinks we have
to be realistic right now we have a major sewer reconstruction that’s going on Aurora
Street and there is no way you’re going to get accurate data until that is finished which
frankly isn’t going to be finished until next summer. So, it would be unrealistic for us to
think in shorter time frames.
Traffic Engineer Logue stated that just to be clear, he didn’t mean that in the next few
months they would do a full analysis of conversion to two way for a number of blocks,
but instead that we could go back and revisit that study and see what the previous
analysis had shown because honestly, he kind of skimmed through it and found a page
or two of the recommendations to provide to the Board but he didn’t go back through the
methodology and data and all that kind of stuff. We could do that and we could engage
with the transportation council about how effective their model might be at looking at a
one or two lane conversion might, those two types of things he thinks we could do in a
few months time.
Supt. Gray stated that he was going to suggest that he thinks if we just brought that
original modeling back here, you’d get a lot of the information, the numbers will be
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 13
within percents, the numbers may have changed by ten percent but in terms of the need
for parking lanes and turning lanes and if you go from one way streets to two way
streets, he thinks that you could see the answer to 90% of what you’re interested in
knowing and so if that’s what you want, we could bring that back just so you can have
an understanding of what it means. Some of this discussion occurred several years ago
and that’s why we limited ourselves to just that one block because you get into the next
block with Seneca Street you’re going to have deal with the DOT and they wanted
modeling done and if you take the next block all the way to State, impacts are very
dramatic, but he thinks that they actually did model that in the SRF and we can show
you that, the numbers won’t be exactly up to date but the impacts will all be very similar,
so we can bring that back without going out and recalibrating the rest and we could go
to the county, and say using these numbers could you look at what we have and that
might take a couple of months for them to get to run it. Based on this conversation we
will get back to the Board after staff have had a chance to talk to the County and if we
think it would be useful to look at the information that was collected over the last couple
of years, we will.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he is prepared to rest on that assurance from the
Supt. and we can just pass it as it or fit it with the language in the last Resolved to
incorporate that; just rest on the assurance and go forward.
Commissioner Dotson stated that this is very much in mind of what she was thinking.
What can you do in a reasonable time frame, a year seemed like long enough but we
might forget what the conversation was, but three or four months from now, it will still be
in our mind.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows:
Carried Unanimously
Green Street Parking Garage – Possible Resolution
Mayor Peterson stated that bids were opened yesterday afternoon and we did re-
arrange them a little bit to see how they were offered to us.
City Engineer West reported that staff originally put this project out to bid in May in order
to receive bids on June 6, 2006. We received bids on four of the five prime contracts;
however, we had no bidders for the general construction and demolition contract. We
changed the time frame of the contract and put it out to bid with bids due in yesterday
and we did receive two bids and the Board has the bid tabulation. The Deputy City
Controller put this together so that we could actually compare apples and apples. Our
apparent low bidder for the total work in the project is Crane Hogan Structural Systems
of Spencerport and their total bid is $7,350,050.00. We did ask for six alternates in order
to break out some parts of the project costs. As you can see the commercial tenant
space, some of the screening walls, pavement reconstruction, and the pedestrian
connections to Center Ithaca from the garage. The second low bidder is within 5%
(4.75%) of the low bidder so we feel these are two good bids. Both contractors are
known to us and are good contractors. The reason that we are not putting forth a
recommendation for award tonight is summarized on the other sheet the Board received
which is the project budget. The total project authorization that we received from
Common Council was $11,397,000 that is the figure at the lower right hand corner of
that spreadsheet. There are an awful lot of contracts associated with this project, but
you can see that it’s generally broken down into professional services, construction
contracts, land acquisition, and then miscellaneous in house costs. If we take all of our
commitments, those would be our professional contracts, our low bids on construction
contracts, our current price on land acquisition, and the in-house costs we are projecting
a total project cost at this time of $13,094,950.00. That is 1.7 million over our
authorization, that is the red figure on the bottom right hand corner. So, unfortunately,
we cannot bring you a recommendation to award this or any of the other contracts
because we don’t have a budget.
Mayor Peterson asked if in the total authorization for the capital project, I know over the
years we’ve made amendments to that capital project so the 11,397.000 takes into
account all the amendments and so on into this capital project line, that’s the grand
total?
City Engineer West responded yes.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 14
Mayor Peterson thanked City Engineer West for his report and stated that last week
when we knew this was coming back, we also asked that Tom or Thys bring the
drawings of the garage just for refreshing if people had questions for understanding
what the project was, so that’s why they are here in case you have some detailed
questions here.
Alderperson Coles asked if the figures reflect costs such as police coverage, for
example, for demolition, for re-routing traffic for example? Once the project is started
she is wondering if some of those peripheral costs are also included in this?
City Engineer West responded that the project budget addresses direct costs to the
project as well as finance costs so for instance, maintenance and protection of traffic is
included as part of the cost in this case of the general construction contract. Any
additional policing that IPD might determine they wish to do is not.
Commissioner Romanoff asked if the repairs on the street itself, she would assume that
after some major demolition, there are going to be repairs to be done and there need to
be turning lanes, are those costs included?
City Engineer West responded that portions of the street would be repaved, especially
where it is affected by the pedestrian crossings. They are proposing to install some
pedestrian signals and chokers mid block in order to facilitate the crossing movements
that we currently see, those costs are included.
Mayor Peterson stated that there is almost a million dollars in contingency built into this
total and she thinks many of these questions could be covered under contingency,
problems in the project as well?
City Engineer West responded that some of them could. The contingencies typically
carry for unanticipated conditions we find a tank buried or massive amounts of concrete
that were unanticipated. He did want to point out, especially in direct answer to your
question, Vicky, on street restoration, there are two contracts which we have not bid yet,
those are the traffic and the site contractor contract. Those contracts and their work
would take place in 2007 so we have not assembled those documents at this time. We
are accounting for a combined total of $450,000 plus 10% contingency for those
activities so the restoration of the street is not specifically shown in these drawings, but
it is accounted for as part of the project.
Alderperson Coles asked about the relocation of the traffic light. Her understanding was
that the mid block crossing light that is going to stay where it is, is that right, in
conjunction with the development across the street?
Mayor Peterson stated that by saying the mid block is going to stay right where it is
might confuse people to think about Tioga Street, do you mean as per the original plans
because? Okay. That crossing is a new crossing and it’s not at Tioga it’s a little further
west from that lined up with Home Dairy Alley and straight through.
Alderperson Coles confirmed that was what she meant and asked if the costs for those
changes included in this.
City Engineer West responded that is the estimated cost on the traffic contract, yes.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated that he just wanted to add that
that mid-block crossing is something that we’ve been talking about almost as long as
I’ve been here. We never thought that we could even get the State to consider it and it
looks like we are very close to getting actual approval of this, so if that does go ahead
so yes, it’s going to be mid-block where it is shown on the drawings.
Commissioner Schlather stated that this is really a question of information. He noticed in
this budget, the name Geldenhys and he would advise, he has a new partner by the
name Geldenhys and his question is she a part of this discussion because if she is he
can’t be a part of this. He didn’t realize.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 15
City Attorney Hoffman stated that she has been representing the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency.
Commissioner Schlather asked if they had something to do with this garage?
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated that she was hired as special
counsel to assist us in the taking and worked in that capacity until we hired Magnamara
with Hiscock and Barclay, so she was involved with it Ray and he doesn’t know if that
constitutes a conflict or not. That is something that you lawyers would have to figure out.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he did not believe she has had any involvement over
the past number of months. If the IURA gets involved which it might, then the issue
could arise.
Commissioner Schlather stated okay, the IURA is not current.
City Attorney Hoffman stated it is not actively involved, but there is a role here he
believes for the IURA.
Mayor Peterson responded yes, because of the underneath space.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort explained that the IURA will be involved
in the disposition of the lease hold rights that the developer will have under the garage
and the garage is also collateral for the Cayuga Garage and the IURA has some role in
that and he can’t quite tell you what that is, but they are involved in some way. He does
not know whether her involvement would represent a conflict.
Commissioner Schlather stated he thinks just to be safe about this. He is not going to
participate in this discussion this evening. He will check with his partner to clarify
whether he should be a part of this discussion or not and advise and also talk to City
counsel.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated going back to the questions about the cross walks, the
existing cross walk at Tioga and the new one; are those crosswalks going to be audible
once they are constructed?
City Engineer West responded that he would imagine they would and that they have not
been designed yet at this point. The one at Cayuga and Green is.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated just to say that the one at Cayuga Green is not the only
model for an audible cross walk, so the existing audible cross walks that we have in the
city are not the only ones that could possibly be in place. So, it would behoove people
who are planning this to look at different options because people, some people tend not
to like the cross walk at Cayuga and Green. They don’t seem as annoyed at the other
crosswalks, but the one at Cayuga Green continues to be a problem for some people.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort responded that he had heard that too
and he would be very interested to know what the alternatives are because they are
actuated so frequently during the day that people in the offices right nearby get kind of
annoyed with hearing it over and over again.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated that once we have an option that we like, perhaps we could
revisit other crosswalks that should have been installed with audible crosswalks when
projects were done and not included.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated that its on the issue of the
accommodates for people with disabilities. The garage itself will be an enormous
improvement because there will be elevators right on the sidewalk, right at the sidewalk
and there will be handicap spaces at every level right at the elevator. A great deal of
thought has gone into accommodations for people who are not sighted and people who
have mobility impairments and so on as we were thinking about this, we really have put
a lot of thought into this as we’ve gone through the design.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated that perhaps once this is going along, for someone to come
to the Disability Advisory Council to fill them in.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 16
Commissioner Dotson asked Mayor Peterson and stated that this sounds like an update
and an opportunity for questions, but she is curious as to whether she sees an issue
that she sees as needs to be before this group right now?
Mayor Peterson stated that she only sees a report/discussion and sharing of information
at this point. Staff may have a different position on this, but that is what hers is.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she had a question for Alderperson Coles. Where
do you see these additional funds coming from to cover these additional expenses?
Alderperson Coles responded that she had no idea.
Mayor Peterson stated that City Council would have to vote to authorize additional
funds.
Commissioner Romanoff asked where this would go next given the situation?
Mayor Peterson responded that it would likely go back to the City Administration
Committee which Maria chairs and then if there is an affirmative vote there to increase
the capital project amount, then it would go on to Common Council at its August 2nd
meeting and then back here on August 9th for possible award of bid. There are other
ways to reduce that amount, there are as Tom mentioned alternates in here that can be
discussed whether we want to or need to do them, so there are other ways to reduce
the 1.7 million. So that is something that needs to be discussed as well by the City.
Commissioner Dotson asked if that would bring it down to within the budget?
Mayor Peterson responded that she didn’t think so, but it could come down several
hundred thousands of dollars depending upon what we’re looking at in the alternate
packages.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that if that’s alright with other Board members and since
we have Tom here and we have the map here, could we have just the quickest review
of what’s being, there are so many words being used, repairs, restoration, and
demolition; just the quickest review of what you would be doing there first and what
you’re calling restoration.
Mayor Peterson stated yes, and that’s fine.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she was concerned if we dropped any of these
alternates because they all seem pretty important but maybe when you going over it you
could just highlight what those alternates are.
Alderperson Coles stated that she had a point of clarification, which is, as part of the
presentation, could we have further explanation of what the alternatives are.
Mayor Peterson stated yes, that’s what Jennifer just mentioned.
City Engineer West explained the map to the Board. The garage is essentially
constructed into three parts. There is the western third, the eastern third which is
essentially the roof of part of the Rothschild building and the center third. What the City
is proposing to do is to demolish the two bridges that cross Green Street, demolish the
double helix, thus freeing this parcel of obligations to the garage. We’re then proposing
to demolish the center third and that is essentially from Home Dairy Alley to the wall of
the Rothschild Building, that’s where there are dumpsters back in there, and there are
dumpsters over here. So, the center third would be demolished as would the Dollar
Store which is on grade. In terms of demolition, we also propose to demolish the ramp
that takes you from the upper level to the lower level of the garage. The silo would stay
for snow storage, but that ramp would be removed, the stairs will be refurbished. So
that’s the demolition, the demolition is very involved, we have to maintain access to
Center Ithaca and from Center Ithaca to Green Street. The remaining two thirds of the
garage do require restoration. This is the same sort of restoration we have done on this
garage periodically throughout its life and on other garages, it’s a matter of removing
bad concrete, bad reinforcement steel, making those repairs, perhaps repairing some of
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 17
the tendons in the concrete and then providing new surfaces over top of that for
waterproofing. Again, the center third is what is going to be reconstructed. It will be
reconstructed so that the entryway to the garage will be here sort of opposite the corner
of the Mental Health building and vehicles would enter and as they turn up and in there
would be ramps taking you up and into the garage so we would have an internal
ramping system in the garage. The ramps would not be exposed to the weather
because they are under cover like the new garage or like Seneca Street. The pedestrian
crossing is intended to come through Home Dairy Alley and through a nice streetscaped
area under the garage. Once again, this is the two thirds of the garage that we are most
familiar with that are elevated on legs so to speak. Here is the entry ramp coming in, the
gates, the booth, one pulls in and then we go up into the garage. On grade, what we’re
proposing to do is make that a rather pleasant space because right next to it will be
retail space on grade. The alternates that you see, the commercial tenant area is the
interior walls and the architectural finishes for this retail space. The on grade
underneath the western section, the section you’re familiar with as part of the Goldberg
parking lot, will be refurbished, there will be at grade parking with an automated parking
system. That is referred to as screened walls and what we’re proposing to do is build
some screening along both Green Street in parts, along the pedestrian area and then
especially along the back of the Commons building to enclose the trash compactors, we
would provide better facilities for them to be washed down, concrete pads so that we
can control the odors a little bit better. There would also be some spaces in there,
enclosed spaces, for trash collection. We would by the way go to a more conventional,
you enter on the right and you exit on the right type of situation rather than what we
have now, you enter on the left and exit on the right. We’ll turn them into a North
American system.
Commissioner Dotson asked if that was basically alternates two and three, the
screened walls and the pavement reconstruction.
City Engineer West responded that was correct.
Alderperson Coles asked since the dumpsters are used by tenants, why are they are
not paying for that.
City Engineer West responded that his understanding is that the tenants pay for the pick
up of the trash that the dumpsters belong to Superior and that the City provided the
installation for them.
Alderperson Coles stated that since that would be an upgrade, her understanding that it
would be an enclosure of the garbage area. Why is it that the people who will be using
that not be asked to pay for it.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort responded that when we built the
Commons, we took away the ability of alot of the businesses along State Street to
handle their own garbage, and so from that point on the City has worked with the
owners and tenants along the Commons and this is a part of that cooperative
relationship between the businesses on The Commons and the City. We’ve in the past,
they’ve paid for the dumpster, we’ve helped organize it so that it’s kind of a sharing of
this. It’s possible that we could parcel it out, it’s a little hard to know on what basis we
would do it. So, it’s something that we could look into, but it would be very difficult to
know how fairly to apportion it.
City Engineer West explained that alternate four is to reconstruct the City Hall parking
lot which is in pretty rough shape since we’re going to be doing all this work.
DAC Liaison Roberts stated that currently when Gadabout currently brings people to
Center Ithaca they are able to pull in under in the Goldberg Parking lot and get up close
to the door of Center Ithaca and let people out, will they be able to do that with the new
construction or how close will they be able to get.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort responded as close as the Home Dairy
Alley.
City Engineer West stated that this is the western portion of the garage, this is the
surface parking lot that would remain and be reconstructed. This is the pedestrian way
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 18
through Home Dairy Alley so Home Dairy Alley sits right over here. This is the entrway,
these are designated surface spaces for people with disabilities, immediately accessible
to both Home Dairy Alley and to the retail space.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she hopes that we’re addressing one thing in this
garage that we have sort of fluffed over in our other ones and that is the use of scooters
and motorcycles. In other words, gates that permit entrance of smaller vehicles like that.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort responded that is a really good
comment and he was concerned that they are not supposed to use both of our other
garages and he doesn’t know if we’ve done that, Tom in the purchase of the equipment.
That is a good comment, we should follow up on it.
City Engineer West stated that he thinks the problems are mostly due to the location of
the loops that if the loops were just installed closer to the equipment they are sensitive
enough to pick up the bulk of the motorcycle. His understanding is that a shopping cart
will trigger a loop if you put it in the middle of it, but he does not design these things so
he cannot tell you specifically that that is the case. So this is the tour of the first floor
under the western third, this is the center third, this again shows the retail space,
restrooms, storage, electrical room, this the ramp as you approach the garage, the
surface area for the attendants, and the next drawing addresses the last two alternates.
This is the center third of the garage on one of the two elevated levels, so the ramp
comes on up, this is the elevator tower that Thys is talking about, so this is where Home
Dairy Alley crosses between Center Ithaca and Home Dairy at grade, this is where the
stair and elevator towers will be right on Green Street. One of the issues we needed to
address, one of the most difficult and we’re still working on this is the access that
currently exisits between the garage and Center Ithaca. We are going to build the center
portion of the garage ten to twelve feet further away from Center Ithaca than it currently
exists, in order to open up more traffic space in that area. Also, because right now the
decks on the parking garage are horizontal in this portion of the garage it is fairly easy
to make the connection from Center Ithaca to the garage; however, with the ramps
rising through here that changes the elevation of the garage relative to Center Ithaca, so
this project proposes to essentially extend landings out to meet those stairs or landings
that already exist. This being the elevator tower to Center Ithaca, these being the
existing stairs coming out at Center Ithaca. Those are the other two alternates that you
see; one of the alternates is for the two landings at the center of the garage portion and
the other alternate is for the one, two, three, and four bridge extensions to Center Ithaca
from the garage. So, he guesses that is the construction run down.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that what was just described seems like a pretty
attractive feature for not alot of money.
City Engineer West stated that the building foundations are being designed so that if the
City realizes a need for future parking, it can be constructed on top of the structure
without modifying the foundation system.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated which the old garage was not.
Mayor Peterson stated that she knows it takes different supports for housing, but if you
didn’t need parking could you do something else up there or do you need totally
different supports say you know, she knows the foot pounds of vehicles versus housing
situations is really different. Does that mean something else could go up there? or
would it only be supportive of a ramp or could it be housing? or something?
City Engineer West responded that he thinks the foundations although they might not be
adequate for the same number of levels, he doesn’t know what the design loads are,
but assuming that the design loads were three times higher for residential than for
parking, we would have the opportunity he believes to building an additional two floors
as opposed to five or six.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated that it is designed for five
additional floors of parking, which is within the zoning envelope, but he thinks the simple
answer is yes, the more complicated answer is that it is his understanding that housing
typically has a different grid pattern for the columns than garages, but he thinks that it is
conceivable.
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 19
Mayor Peterson stated that she was just thinking because many of us believe that by
the time we might need more parking, hopefully there might be fewer cars.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated that it is possible that it could be
adapted, he is not a structural engineer, he will let Bill answer how that can be done.
Mayor Peterson stated that she was just wondering, I don’t want to use time on my
ideas.
City Engineer West stated that there are probably a ton of code questions that would
need to be addressed as well.
Director of Planning and Development VanCort stated that a comment that Tom made
that the four loads for housing are higher than the four loads for a garage.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she hoped that Council takes this opportunity to see
whether this is really a good idea to rebuild this garage because we just have a new
garage a half block away and she hopes that we can use the last couple years of
information for Council to look at to see whether this is a good use. Maybe there will be
a few dozen smart cars for those of us who live downtown and we’ll just run to the
Cayuga Street garage and check one out.
Mayor Peterson stated that she doesn’t look at this as just the garage, she looks at it as
for the whole Green Street frontage and future development for the downtown because
Green Street and Seneca Street because we don’t walk or drive through the Commons
so those are our gateways and what you see now on Green Street is a parking lot and a
parking lot and it’s not a real. She thinks that there is a much more dynamic and vital
opportunity here, so she links it with other pieces besides the parking garage. Those
discussions will certainly be had.
CREEKS, BRIDGES, AND PARKS:
Conley Park Sign - Resolution
By Commissioner Romanoff: Seconded by Commissioner Schlather
WHEREAS, former Mayor Edward J. Conley completed his thirty-one years of public
service with his work on the Town of Ithaca Town Board which was followed by the
Town Board donating, installing, and dedicating an entrance sign to the City’s Conley
Park, with prior City authorization now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works wishes to thank the Town of Ithaca Town
Board for the tasteful and informative addition to Conley Park which chronicles the
dedication of this remarkable citizen as it greets visitors entering the park, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works extends its appreciation to former Mayor
Edward J. Conley for his numerous contributions to the City of Ithaca, as well as to all
the residents of Tompkins County.
Commissioner Dotson asked if the Board should include in here permission for them to
erect this sign on City land.
Supt. Gray responded that a thank you is more appropriate and her point is well taken
and the coordination was done through the Parks Commission. If they missed a step he
thinks the Board can graciously set it aside. There was a body that was overseeing it
that had the City’s best interests in mind.
Commissioner Schlather stated that if that is necessary, just say in the whereas
previously approved, in a whereas, say donating, installing and dedicating an entrance
sign to the City’s Conley Park, permission having been previously granted with the
authorization of city staff or something like that, with prior authorization, leave it and
then we, we don’t want to set a precedent as to who provides the authorization so just
say with prior authorization. He just wanted to comment and everybody in this room has
a lot of respect and affection those of who knew him better than others realizes what a
visionary he was and in some respects how he really is emblematic of a single person
with some vision, alot of charisma and a huge amount of heart, what that person is able
Board of Public Works – July 12, 2006- Page 20
to do in his or her community and we, frankly, wouldn’t have the Commons, but for Ed
Conley, we wouldn’t have in his view, the precedent of very open government,
government that was very inclusive, that was diverse, and that was inviting and he
always enjoyed watching Ed perform, working with him; although he was right at the tail
end of, in terms of his involvement in city affairs, and just admiring his doggedness, he
has done a tremendous job and he is just grateful that we are able to find a place to
honor him.
Commissioner Romanoff stated that she just wanted to add a small footnote too. In the
early days of Historic Ithaca which was founded to save some of our more meaningful
architecture downtown, Ed was always a friend of the early movement of that group and
very helpful in the saving of the Clinton House and the Boardman House. She does not
think we would have pulled the Boardman House off without him. He was also a man
who if he didn’t agree with you, you would still get a huge pat on your back, get out of
here, I don’t like what you’re talking about!
Alderperson Coles stated that she just wanted to thank.
Carried Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor