HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-13 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Monday, June 3, 2013, at 4:45 p.m. in
Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York.
Agenda
1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda (Items 1 -5: 15 min.
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board
4. Response to the Public
5. Reports
Special Committees of the Board
Council Liaison
Board Liaisons
Superintendent and Staff
Other Department Heads
6. Approval of Minutes
6.1 May 6, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes
7. Administration and Communications
8. VOTING ITEMS
8.1 Buildings, Properties, Refuse and Transit
A. Award of Contracts for Seneca Street Parking Garage Priority 2 Repairs —
Resolution
8.2 Highways, Streets and Sidewalks
8.3 Parking and Traffic
8.4 Creeks, Bridges and Parks
8.5 Water and Sewer
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.1 Request for Encroachment at 207 Elmira Road
9.2 Bordoni Fitness Trailhead Design
9.3 Plumbing Permit Fees
9.4 Board Meeting Schedule
10. FOR YOUR INFORMATION
10.1 Fluoridation of Drinking Water Article
11. New Business
12. Adjournment
If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully
participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607- 274 -6570 at least 48 hours before the
meeting.
The Board of Public Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the months at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are voting
meetings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning
issues, and requests made to the Superintendent. The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request
written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or
author invited to attend.
Notes for BPW Agenda, April 93, 2091
8.1A. Award of Contract for Seneca Street Parking Garage Priority 2 Repairs —
Resolution
Bids will be received on May 29, 2013. This resolution is a placeholder that will be updated
and distributed at the meeting on June 3, 2013.
9.1 Request for Encroachment at 207 Elmira Road
Mike Wells, owner of Welco Awnings on Old Elmira Road, has submitted an application for use
of City property. He is requesting that a portion of the green space proposed in the Complete
Street Project for Old Elmira Road be narrowed by three feet to give his business more space
for parking and maneuvering of vehicles. City Attorney Ad Lavine suggests that the Board
discuss the request, centering around (a) whether the Board believes this is an appropriate
use of City land (in exchange for the scheduled license fee); and (b) what precisely the City
would want the licensee to do with the land if the license ever discontinued (restore green
space, but how: add soil? plant grass? plant trees? any sort of edging or curbing ?).
9.2 Bordoni Fitness Trailhead Design
Rick Manning will provide a short presentation on the design of the Bordoni Fitness Trailhead
planned for Cass Park. The Parks Commission supports the design. Please see Rick's e-mail
for more information.
9.3 Plumbing Permit Fees
Attached is an e-mail discussing the current fees that the City charges for plumbing permits,
along with rates from other local cities to begin a discussion on changing Ithaca's rates.
9.4 Board Meeting Schedule
Govind has suggested that the Board of Public Works meet only two times per month. The
City's Charter C -58.1 states, "The Board shall meet at such time as may be expedient or as it
shall from time to time designate."
Notes from WJG: When I started work with the city in 1987, the Board met twice a month in
voting meetings. The Board was made up of several subcommittees which met to conduct
business and to bring resolutions to the Board. The subcommittees were broken down by the
Board's assigned areas of concern under the charter (parks, water and sewer, transportation,
bridges, buildings, policies and personnel, etc.) and met about once a month. People were
usually on more than one committee. Mayor Nichols (early 1990's) thought the full Board
should meet as a "committee of the whole" because they usually had to go over the same
discussion material to educate the Board prior to votes. They started meeting four times a
Page 2
month as two voting meetings and two committees of the whole. The Board later thought three
meetings (all voting) would allow business to be done and items dispatched in a more timely
(and less time consuming) manner. The meetings were moved from Wednesday to Monday
when Mayor Myrick moved all Common Council committee meetings to 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesdays. I expect you could get by with two voting meetings, if you are willing to curtail
both Board and public discussions, and willing to add a meeting now and then. You can
schedule three meetings and cancel the third if not needed. You will not be the first to try a
new approach.
10.1 Fluoridation of Drinkina Water Article —For Your Information
Notes from WJG: The topic of fluoridation in drinking water has fascinated me since I arrived
in Ithaca and found that it was forbidden in the city's charter. I had just added it to the City of
Ogdensburg's water system by a grant from the state's health department. I didn't even know it
was a question, let alone an idea that was rejected outright. Attached for your information is an
article from the Washington Post outlining a long running battle for (or against) fluoridation in
Portland, Oregon. A year ago the Mayor and his five person Council had voted to add fluoride
to the city's water, over loud objections. A small upstate community in New York just voted to
stop using fluoride in their water. I have also attached a page from the Center for Disease
Control on the topic, as just one of many sources (pro or con) of information on the topic. The
only understanding that I have come to over time is that people like to make choices when they
can.
KathU GehrLvi.c, Exeu&t Ve ASS%Stavvt for
R-0U gevJ01VK vL
ActLng SuperLwtevAev�t of PwbUb WoH?L
MCI U 29, 2013
Page 3
8.1A Award of Contracts for Seneca Street Garage Priority 2 Repairs — Capital Project
372 — Resolution
WHEREAS, bids were received on May 29, 2013 for Seneca Street Garage — Priority 2
Repairs including general construction, plumbing and electrical renovation, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council established Capital Project 372 for Seneca Street Garage —
Priority 2 Repairs, and
WHEREAS, Contractor 1, Address submitted the lowest responsible bid for General
Construction work of $XXXXXXX, and
WHEREAS, Contractor 2, Address submitted the lowest responsible bid for Plumbing work of
$XXXXXXX, and
WHEREAS, Contractor 3, Address submitted the lowest responsible bid for Electrical work of
$XXXXX.XX, now therefore, be it,
RESOLVED, That the contract for General Construction work related to the Seneca Street
Garage — Priority 2 Repairs is awarded to Contractor 1, Address for the lowest responsible bid
for General Construction work of $ XXXXXXX, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the contract for Plumbing work related to the Seneca Street Garage —
Priority 2 Repairs is awarded to Contractor 2, Address for the lowest responsible bid for
Plumbing work of $ XXXXX -XX, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the contract for Electrical work related to the Seneca Street Garage —
Priority 2 Repairs is awarded to Contractor 3, Address for the lowest responsible bid for
Electrical work of $ XXXXXXX, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute these contracts, and that
the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to administer the same.
Page 4
CITY OF ITHACA — Superintendent of Public Works kgehring@cityofithaca.org
108 East Green Street, Suite 202, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Phone: (607) 274 -6527 Fax: (607) 274 -6587
APPLICATION FOR USE OF CITY PROPERTY
(see § §170 of the City Code for additional requirements, restrictions, and procedures)
APPLICANT NAME ,/.71Je,4ae-Il &,A-P J t�
NAME OF ORANIZATION /BUSINESS; C�_ 0✓'4..��
MAILING ADDRESS c -90-4-
PHONE NUMBER 22 DATE OF APPLICATON SUBMISSION 4^-/ 7—/
EMAIL ADDRESS ,,j �' �ie1 e? •�e arm 7�rS o �'�
All of the following documentation MUST be submitted to the Superintendent's Office, along with this application
form, and $100 non - refundable fee, in order for application to be considered complete.
* * ** Incomplete Applications will not be accepted ****
❑ Provide a typed explanation of your request clearly indicating the location pp u
your intended use(s) of that property, and intended duration of use. Also, in Jude a deb fi
changes that you wish to make to the City property and any other inform ition you Rffift,isf I'WW4Y ,
paving, drainage improvements, signs, structures, etc.
❑ $100 non - refundable application fee. Checks payable to the City of Ithaca. APR 2 9 2013
❑ Property survey produced by a licensed land surveyor showing the City prope and a9A?1P0t!RVV e,IXQQ"
and Engineering Division
❑ A drawing, such as submitted or approved site plan, clearly illustrating th boundaries of the C'
proposed for private use, including physical changes proposed and the affected area (in square feet or acres)
❑ Insurance coverage consistent with the terms stated in §170 -91)(1) of the City Code
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application Fee of $100 paid on 44If)0 (date) by cash or check # Joa4 (circle one)
Application accepted by: LO(QQi a..G5� Date: �o2cj 113
Willi m J. Gray, P. E., Superintendent of Public Works
The Superintendent of Public Works has determined that this request should be properly treated as (check one):
❑ Temporary easement . Permanent easement ❑ Lease KLicense ❑ Other
The Superintendent has determined that this request ❑ does Ig does not involve the use of public parkland.
as
The Superintendent has determined that this request ❑ does pt does not require environmental review.
The Superintendent shall determine whether the requested encroachment or use interferes with any public works
functions or needs, and whether any conditions should be attached to any granting of an easement, license or lease.
The Superintendent has determined that additional review /action is necessary from the following (check all that apply):
❑ Mayor ❑ City Attorney ❑ Fire Chief ❑ Board of Public Works
❑ City Clerk ❑ Common Council ❑ Other
This application been ❑ approved ❑ with condlitlons ❑ denied
by: Date:
William J. Gray, P.E., Supenntendent of Public Works
and a written response ❑ has ❑ has not been provided.
J:\Front Office Files \Forms \Use of City Property Application.doc
moq
WELCO
AWNINGS & UPHOLSTERY
207 ELMIRA RD. (607) 277 -4727 (PH.)
ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 (607) 277 -7502 (fax)
APPLICATION FOR USE OF CITY PROPERTY
WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE PROPOSED GREEN SPACE INCLUDED IN THE COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
FOR OLD ELMIRA RD. BE NARROWED UP BY THREE (3) FEET. THIS IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BACK
UP A VEHICLE FOR THE CUSTOMER TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE. THIS SPACE IS NEEDED ONLY FOR THIS
PURPOSE. AS FAR AS THE DURATION OF TIME I WOULD HAVE TO SAY FOR AS LONG AS THE BUILDING IN
QUESTION HAS RETAIL CUSTOMERS. WE WOULD NOT BE MAKING ANY PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY.
THE CITY HAS OUR INSURANCE AND IS NAMED ON IT
THANK YOU, MICHAEL WELLS
1-') A
III
wilco
Ix
r�IU
0
O
C:)
Q,
00
it
+
'-o
+
7.7
wilco
Ix
0
Q,
00
it
wilco
Ix
703
61
Lei
00
it
+
'-o
703
61
Lei
00
+
'-o
r
Parking Dimensions 79
rE: Small car dimensions should be used only in RECOMMENDED RANGE OF STALL WIDTHS (SW)
designated for small cars or with entrance controls WIDTH (ft) 8 9 10 11 12
admit only small cars. Placing small car stalls into Small car use
andard car layout is not recommended. Standard All day parker use
parking dimensions will accommodate all normal
monger vehicles. Large car parking dimensions make Standard car use
(ing easier and faster and are recommended for Luxury and elderly use
iry, a high turnover, and use by the elderly. When
parking angle is 60° or less, it may be necessary to . Supermarket and camper use
3 to 6 ft to the bay width to provide aisle space Handicapped use"
pedestrians walking to and from their parked
Local zoning laws should be reviewed before *Minimum requirements = 1 or 2 per 100 stalls or as specified by local, state, or federal law; place conveni @nt to
I. ceeding. destination.
.}I� 2 61, 13' -6" � VARIES WITH ANGLE � WALK 10' -0"P EF.
0 SINGLE 4" LINE DOUBLE 4" LINE 16' -O" 'e / (7 ` I 7' -O" M)N,
SW /SINE
2 � I
0
wt W2 W3 W4 \
SINGLE LOADED DOUBLE LOADED WALL DOUBtLW�THDSAAWTOOTH t To (( (OR � OF BAY OR
WALL TO WALL TO WALL (WITH CON- TO WALK EDGE) EDGE OF WALK
(WITH BUMPERS) TINUOUS CONCRETE CURB) CONCRETE CURB) 4" PARKING TWO SIDES
0
1'_4" 1' -4" 4" EACH _ (p
■ 1 1 1 } 1 1 1 I=N W
O JI p
1 l7 r + + t Z
Ir 16' -O. 22.-0. Q
4' -0'. END 0 d
DETAIL "T" MARKER TYPICAL _ _ STALL m
ARKING DIMENSIONS IN FEET AND INCHES
PARALLEL PARKING STALLS AND "T" MARKER DETAIL
VOTE: B angles greater than 70° have aisle widths wide enough for two -way travel.
Nllliam T. Mahan AIA, Santa Barbara California
�.. .r` .. -r 1a.. ^i p. ^.... ^.w,mnn lraljfornin
SW
W
1.
45°
25.9 "
40' 10"
36' -8"
32' 0"
49' -10"
47'-8"
45' -2"
32' 0"
49' -4"
46' 4 ",
44' -8"
32' 0"
49' -2"
47'-0"
44' -8"
32' -7"
50' 2"
47'•9"
Lgtt;kt�
49'-11 "
47'•7"
45' -3"
50°
26' -6"
42' -0"
40' -2"
38' -3"
32'-11"
51' -9"
49' -4"
46' -10"
32'-9"
51' -0"
48' -10"
46' -6"
32' 8"
507-6"
48.2„
45' -10"
33'.0"
49' 1"
' "
50' 11"
48' -9"
46' -8"
32' -B"
50 11"
48' -9"
46' -8"
55°
27'-2"
43' 1"
41' -5"
39'•9"
34'-2"
53' -10"
51'•6"
49' -0"
34' -0"
53' -2"
51' -4"
49' 0"
34' -0"
51' -10"
49' 10"
47' -6"
34'.0"
53' -3"
52' -3"
' -0"
' -10"
52 2"
50 2"
48' -5"
33' -10"
52' 2"
50' -2"
48' -5"
60°
29'•4"
45' 8"
44' -2"
42' -9"
36' -2"
56' -0"
54' -0"
51' -8"
35' -4"
55' -6"
53' -10"
51' 6"
35' -0"
53' -6"
51'.6"
49' -10"
35' -11"
55' -4"
51' 8"
54' -0"
52'x"
50' -8"
34'-1 1"
54' -0"
52'-4"
50' -8"
65°
31' -9"
48' -2"
47' -0"
45' -9"
38' -5"
58' -4" r
56' -6"
54' -6"
37' -6"
57 -10"
56' -0"
54' -0"
36' -10"
55' -4"
53' 11"
52' -6"
38' -3"
58' -0"
54 9"
56' -6"
53' -8"
37' 2"
56' 6"
55' -1"
53' -8"
70°
34'.0"
50' -6"
49' -6"
48' -6"
41' -0"
60' -2"
59' -0"
57' -10"
39'•8"
60' -0"
58' -8"
57' -0"
38' -10"
5B' -0"
57' 0"
55' 9"
40' -11"
58' -0"
59' 3"
57' -0"
39' -11"
59' -3"
58'•4"
57' -0"
75°
36' =2"
52' -7"
51' -10"
51' -1"
43' -6"
62' -0"
61' -2"
60' -0"
42' -0"
61' -10"
61' -0"
59' -8"
41' -6"
60' -6"
59' 8"
58' -9"
61' -0"
61' 9"
59' -10"
42' -5"
61' -9"
60' 11"
59' -10"
80°
38,_2."
54' -4"
53' -10"
53'•4'"
45' -6"
63' -6"
63' -0"' .
62'•6"
44' -4"
63' -4"
63'.0"
62' -0"
43'-8"
62' -8"
62' -0"
61' -6"
63' 4"
62' -10"
62' -2"
45'•0"
63' 4"
62'_101'
62'•2"
85°
40,_0„
55' -11"
55' -8"
55' -5"
46' -11"
64'•9"
64' -6"
64' -3"
46' -2"
64'•9"
W631'0"
64' -8"
64' -6"
64' -1"
46' -6"
64' -8"
64' -6"
64' -1"
90°
41'•9"
57' -2"
57' -2"
5T 2"
$8' -0"
66' 0"
66' -0"
66'-0"
48'•0"
66' -0"
66' -0"
66' 0"
48--0"
65' -11"
65' 11"
f5' 11"
48' -0"
66' -0"
66' 0 ""
66' -0"
4B' -0"
66' -0"
66' -0"
roup I:
call cars
-
8' -0"
2
4
roup I I:
andard cars
B' -6"
1
2
3
4
9' -0"
1
2
3
4
9' 6"
1
2
3
4
3roup III:
arge cars
9' -0"
1
2
3
4
9' -6"
1
2
3
4
10' 0"
1
32 4"
2
49' 11"
3
47'•7"
4
45' -3"
VOTE: B angles greater than 70° have aisle widths wide enough for two -way travel.
Nllliam T. Mahan AIA, Santa Barbara California
�.. .r` .. -r 1a.. ^i p. ^.... ^.w,mnn lraljfornin
� y
i
c 7
cJ
CA
CA
a
3
Q V
P a�
L
o�
�N
3 J.
� j 4
a
r
�I
7!
v.
J'
0
N
o`
.a
ii
a
Q••`.. .....
�
` Da
2
C h
a 1-
N
y-
—�i
ti
4
ti
j
•a
v
v
a
a
,
i
p
r.:
e E,
r
G ° �
�1
U
r
�I
7!
v.
J'
0
N
o`
.a
ii
a
Q••`.. .....
�
` Da
2
C h
a 1-
N
y-
—�i
ti
:A
C
L
J
CU
4.1
J
/I
Y7'
n.
c
v
c„
_ r
N •Z
'r
� a
0
t
r'
0
4
•a
v
a
S
2
,
i
p
r.:
e E,
s
G ° �
:A
C
L
J
CU
4.1
J
/I
Y7'
n.
c
v
c„
_ r
N •Z
'r
� a
0
t
r'
0
Request to Use City Property at 207 Elmira Road
According to the provided survey, there is 39.8 to 39.9 feet between the face of building
to the property line. There is a 3 ft sidewalk along the building fagade, leaving 36.8 to
36.9 feet for parking on the property.
Architectural Graphic Standards recommend 48 feet for 90 degree parking and two -way
driving aisles. The City Zoning Ordinance (325 -20) requires minimum 18 foot parking
spaces and 20 to 24 foot aisles for two -way traffic; thus, by zoning, 38 to 42 feet in total.
Accordingly, the property does not have enough room within its property line to provide
90 degree parking and two -way access aisles. The property owner could provided angled
parking on the property, but then would probably need to go with a one -way driving
aisle. This would work within the property line and would work with the proposed
driveway layouts as proposed by the Engineering Office.
Mr. Wells has requested that the City reduce the proposed planting area that separates the
proposed sidewalk from the property by three feet of space to be used for access
aisle /circulation for his parking lot. This would then allow for 39.8 to 39.9 feet for 90
degree parking spaces and two -way driving aisles, which would meet the City zoning
requirements, though not the Arch graphic std recommendations.
The current plans show a planting area between the edge of sidewalk and the property
line at approximately 13.5 feet. Reducing this by 3 feet, even allowing for curbing or
other barrier between the parking area and the landscape area, would likely provide
adequate space for trees or other landscaping, probably just under 10 feet remaining (the
planting plan is not yet developed). However, our plans show a sanitary main
approximately 3.5 to 4 feet off the edge of the proposed sidewalk. If the City were to
agree to Mr. Wells' request, this will reduce the planting area and force the centerline of
the planting area to approx. 3.5 from the sanitary main. Denying his request would allow
the center line of plantings to be about 5 feet from the main. My suggestion would be to
discuss this with the City Forester. Otherwise, the Engineering office is ok with this
request. We can prepare a proposed fee upon request.
TNL
5/14/13
JAEncroachments\207 Elmira Rd\Request to Use City Property at 207 Elmira Road.doc
Page 1 of 1
Kathrin Gehring - BPW and Planning Board
From: "Rick Manning" <rmannin4 @twcny.rr.com>
To: "' Kathrin Gehring "' <kgehring @cityofithaca.org >, "'Megan Wilson "'
<mwilson @cityofithaca.org >, "'JoAnn Cornish "' <JoannC @cityofithaca.org>
Date: 5/14/2013 1:58 PM
Subject: BPW and Planning Board
CC: "'Scott Wiggins "' <scott@latourelle.com>
Hi All,
I wanted to schedule a BPW presentation on Bordoni Fitness Trailhead to be constructed in Cass Park (Parks
Commission voted in support today). Also Planning board or staff review of the fitness trailhead would be great to
schedule. We hope to build this in mid to late June if possible. We believe we have adequate funding in hand.
While a BPW it was also be great to provide an update on the stewart park playground design process and an
STPB tourism capital Grant that Friends just received for Large Pavilion work.
Finally, who should i talk to about scheduling a ribbon cutting tea party. Friends of Stewart Park would like to
thank the City staff and board for doing such a nice job on the pavilion restoration. I think doing it during the
workday makes most sense to ensure the crews are there. could be at lunch or the end of the day, or anytime.
Thanks.
Rick
Rick Manning, ASLA
114 Dey Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 -592 -4647
rmannin4 @twcny.rr.com
file://CADocuments and Settings\kgehring \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise\519242EFcoi... 5/29/2013
Page 1 of 1
Kathrin Gehring - agenda item for June 3 BPW
From: Robert Morache <robmorache @gmail.com>
To: Sarah Myers <sarahm @cityofithaca.org >, Kathrin Gehring
<kgehring @cityofithaca.org>
Date: 5/7/2013 9:16 AM
Subject: agenda item for June 3 BPW
Attachments: Plumbing Permit fees.docx
Kathryn and Sarah,
The attached document on plumbing fees was sent to me by David Warden. It was an email from 2012
regarding our comically low plumbing permit fees. This issue did not come before BPW back then for
some reason, so I think we should take this up now, given the City's financial situation and the
anticipated surge of impending new development.
Seems the June 3rd meeting would be an appropriate time to include it, since we seem to have filled the
May 13th meeting.
Thanks,
Rob M
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\kgehring \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise\5188C65Ecoi... 5/29/2013
>>> Marc Albanese 5/24/2012 3:41 PM >>>
Bill and Erik,
We have had some discussion over the years about raising the permit fees for plumbing
permits issued through the Plumbing Inspectors Office.
As you know, the fees are quite low (nothing wrong with that) but they also have not
been adjusted in over 20 years!
The current fee structure is as follows:
• One and Two Family Home is $5.00 plus $1.00 /fixture
• Commercial, Multiple Residence and Other is $10.00 plus $1.00 /fixture
For example: a new bathroom installation in a single family home is $8.00 ($5 + 3
fixtures); a handicapped half bath in an office building is $12.00 ($10 + 2 fixtures).
Multiple Residence projects run the gamut: 616 W. Buffalo St (17 units) at $113
compared to Phase I, Collegetown Terrace on E. State Street, Building # 2 (50 units)
paid $504. Large scale buildings such as the Physical Science Building on the Cornell
Campus paid $1,055 for their 6 story academic lab facility.
I guess... the question isn't "should we raise the plumbing permit fees ?" but how big of
an adjustment needs to be made? I have canvassed other jurisdictions that charge for
plumbing permits and this is what I have found:
Plumbing Permit fees in Elmira:
Existing Structure
• Fixture Replacement $15.00 + $3.00 per fixture
• Fixture Replacement with Roughing $20.00 per fixture
• Hot Water Tank Replacement $15.00
New Construction
• Residential: 1 or 2 dwelling $20.00 + $25.00 per bath
• Residential: 3 or more dwellings $75.00 + $3.00 per fixture
• Commercial $75.00 + $3.00 per fixture
• Hot Water Tank Installation $15.00
Plumbing Permit fees in Cortland:
Plumbing Permits Fees
• New Building or Extending existing for Single Family Home $105 plus fixture fee
• New Building or Extending existing for all other structures $150 plus fixture fee
• Replacement of existing fixture - all structures $45 plus fixture fee
• Fixture Fee $4 each
Plumbing Permit fees Auburn:
• All Residential $10 + $2 per fixture
• Commercial $ 40 + $2 per fixture
Plumbing Permit fees Bolton Point:
• All buildings: Mini Permit (3 inspections) $138
• All building: Regular Permit (5 inspections) $230
• Additional Inspections (3 inspections) $138
Based on the range of prices being charged by other permitting authorities and
considering our own unique circumstances I would offer the following amendment to our
plumbing permit fee structure.
Proposed City of Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule
• Single Family Residences: $25 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences 2 -4 units: $50 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences 5 -10 units: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences 11 -20 units: $250 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences 21 units or more: $500 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work under $25,000: $100 application fee plus
$10 per fixture
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $25,000 to $100,000: $250
application fee plus $10 per fixture
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $100,000 to $500,000: $500
application fee plus $10 per fixture
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work over $500,000: $750 application fee plus
$10 per fixture
All work at Cornell University shall be based on the City of Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee
Schedule for Commercial or Other Plumbing work plus a cost recovery fee of 15
percent.
Rationale
The fee schedule keeps the Single Family permits at a reasonable cost at somewhere
in the $35 -$45 range for most work while providing a "sliding scale" for all other types of
construction. The increases in the fees are proportional to the amount of review that is
associated with more complicated or compound plumbing construction (multiple types,
high rises, mixed uses). The issues that necessitate a higher degree of review such as:
fire flows, large meter sizing, valve placements, equipment locations, backflow
requirements, grease trap sizing, utility service sizing and entrance coordination, storm
water regulations, sanitary discharge requirements and others, qualify the higher fees.
Within the "sliding scale" fees there are two general categories of Multiple Residence
and Commercial. In the Multiple Residence fees the application cost increase with the
number of units and reflects the increased administrative effort needed to approve plans
and specifications, coordinate with department personnel and resources, and to execute
the requirements of the permit. The fixture fees are universal for multiple residence
applications and represents the inspection phase.
The Commercial or Other (Academic, Industrial, etc) application fees are similar to the
Multiple Residences fees accept that, instead of units, the fee is based on the dollar
value of the plumbing work (Actual Total of Labor and Material). Our Building
Department uses a similar method of total construction cost to determine the Building
Permit fee. The formulas are different but the concept and premise are the same. The
dollar value is used to represent the amount of plumbing work or equipment being
installed. The greater the dollar value, the greater the administrative review. Fixture fees
are higher but universal within the category. The higher fixture costs associated with
commercial plumbing equipment is justified in that there can be found in these types of
fixtures more specialized and unique installation requirements than standard household
plumbing. Here the gamut extends beyond bathrooms and kitchens to plumbing items
designed for other Industries. Examples are: cooling towers and chillers, commercial
dishwashers connected to chemical rinse dispensers, sterilizers, surgery tables, dental
aspirator, medical vacuum systems, fume hoods, lab sinks, wok stoves, landscape
irrigation systems, grease and sediment interceptors, sewage ejectors, water filtration
systems, make -up water for fan /coil and boiler systems, etc... Commercial plumbing
fixtures will therefore require more effort and knowledge of code and manufacturers
requirements than fixtures associated with Multiple Residences.
Cornell University is a different situation. The revenues collected by the City through the
regular issuance of water and sewer bills establishes the budget and spending
allowances of the Water and Sewer Division. This office is an expenditure within that
budget and though permit fees do contribute to the revenues, it is fair to say that each
user pays for a greater portion of that expenditure by their use of the City's water supply
and sewage collection system. Cornell has their own water supply and furnishes most
of their buildings with it. They pay the City for sewage only yet they receive all of the
services of the Plumbing Inspectors Office. Not only that, but the plumbing systems at
Cornell are the most complex systems in the City. They are elaborate and many. I
spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with Cornell projects than I do on any
of the other City projects. The question is, what is the equitable solution?
Raise the sewer rates? You can tackle that one! I am suggesting a simple, direct, even-
handed and well established practice of a "cost recovery" fee tacked on to all Cornell
Plumbing Permits. The disparity is well established and the 15% cost recovery fee is
almost token. Nonetheless, it will help defray some costs that the Dept would have
otherwise used to subsidize the service. Realistically, it would add anywhere from a few
dollars for the smallest application to possibly $1000 for a huge "mega" building with a
million dollars worth of plumbing. It may not be the panacea we are looking for but it is
an affirmative step forward at recovering a cost that the rate payers are paying for now.
Page 1 of 1
Kathrin Gehring - Re: meeting twice a month instead
From:
Robert Morache <robmorache @gmail.com>
To:
Govind Acharya <govind73 @gmail.com>
Date:
5/28/2013 12:00 PM
Subject:
Re: meeting twice a month instead
CC:
BPW <bpw @cityofithaca.org>
Over the past year, our meetings seem to have gotten shorter anyway... maybe we are just getting more
efficient/effective?
I would have no problem with 2 longer meetings. It makes it easier to avoid Monday Holidays and also
will give me less conflict when the Comp Plan Committee shifts to a different Monday. Comp Plan may
also need to begin meeting 2X per month anyway.
11 61
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Govind Acharya <govind73 , gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to consider meeting twice a month for the BPW instead of 3x per month. In my 3 years on the
BPW, I haven't seen any real rationale to meet so often.
By meeting 2x per month (2nd /4th Monday), we can have slightly longer meetings and save the other
Mondays for any special meetings that may need to occur. It would also allow us to not take the easy
way out and hold stuff for the next meeting if we are meeting on consecutive weeks. It would
significantly ease the burden for the charter- mandated BPW liaison to the Planning Board.
best,
i Govind
file://CADocuments and Settings\kgehring\Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \51A49C77coi... 5/29/2013
Portland, Ore., mayor concedes that residents have rejected water fluor... http: / /www.washingtonpostcom/mtional /health science / Portland- ore -r..
[�Ji 172,1171r, I 1-1-ITIl 61-79 1 r17,1 i
Back to previous page
Portland, Ore., mayor concedes that
residents have rejected water
fluoridation
By Associated Press, Published: May 211 Updated:
Wednesday, May 22,3:01 AM
PORTLAND, Ore. — The mayor of Portland, Ore., has conceded defeat in
an effort to add fluoride to the city's drinking water.
With more than 80 percent of the expected ballots counted late Tuesday
night, the Multnomah County election website showed the fluoride proposal
failing, 60 percent to 40 percent.
Mayor Charlie Hales supported fluoridation and said "the measure lost
despite my own `yes' vote.
"That's sure disappointing, but I accept the will of the voters," he said in a
statement.
Fluoridation foes were delighted.
"We're very excited with how the numbers look," said Kellie Barnes with
the anti - fluoride group Clean Water Portland.
If the early returns hold up, "then Portlanders spoke out to value our clean
water and ask for better solutions for our kids."
Voters in Portland twice rejected fluoridation before approving it in 1978.
That plan was overturned two years later, before any fluoride was ever
added to the water.
The City Council voted last year to add fluoride to the water supply that serves about 900,000 people.
But opponents quickly gathered enough signatures to force a vote on the subject.
Rejection of the proposal would keep Portland the largest U.S. city without fluoride in the water or with
plans to add it. San Jose, Calif., — which is larger than Portland — has been working to add fluoride to
its water supply.
Voters had weeks to make their choice in the mail -ballot election. By Tuesday it was too late to rely on
1 of 3 5/22/2013 2:24 PM
Portland, Ore., mayor concedes that residents have rejected water fluor... http:// www. washingtonpost .coin/natiomi/health- science /Portland- ore -r.
the postman, so drop boxes were placed across the city to accommodate those who waited until the final
day.
"We were still getting ballots from drop sites close to 8 p.m.," said Eric Sample, a Multnomah County
elections spokesman. That meant a "pretty darn long night" of vote counting that likely would stretch
into Wednesday, he said.
Supporters and opponents of fluoridation raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and traded accusations
of sign- stealing and shoddy science in an election that has been the city's most contentious of the 21 st
century.
A sampling of voters dropping off ballots earlier Tuesday in rainy Pioneer Courthouse Square found
people opposed to fluoridation.
"People don't like change. When in doubt, say no," said Tracy Rauscher, a native Portlander who, like a
native Portlander, did not use an umbrella.
Portland's drinking water already contains naturally occurring fluoride, though not at levels considered
to be effective at fighting cavities. Backers of fluoridation say adding more of it to the water is a safe,
effective and affordable way to improve the health of low- income children whose parents don't stress
proper nutrition and dental hygiene.
Opponents describe fluoride as a chemical that will ruin the city's pristine water supply, and they argue
that adding it would violate an individual's right to consent to medication.
Although most Americans drink water treated with fluoride, it has long been a contentious topic. In the
1950s, fluoridation was feared as a Communist plot. Today, people worry that its effect on the body has
not been sufficiently examined.
"I don't want chemicals in my water," Sarah Lazzaro said after voting Tuesday. "I know that there are
really no known health risks with it, but there's a lot of things we find out later in life really do have
health risks."
The issue re- appeared on Portland's radar late last summer, when health organizations that had quietly
lobbied the City Council for a year persuaded the panel to unanimously approve fluoridation by March
2014.
Days before the vote, 227 people — most of them opponents — signed up to testify at a public hearing
that lasted 6 1/2 hours. When their objections weren't heeded, they quickly gathered tens of thousands
of signatures to force Tuesday's vote.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.
2 of 3 5/22/2013 2:24 P2
CDC - Community Water Fluoridation - Oral Health http: / /www.cdc.gov /print.doi sessionid= 48A2E9EF2268496F35A84..
Overview
For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and
healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized
water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements
(http://www.cdc.,Qov/mmwr/-Preview/mmwrhtml/0005679Lhtm of the
20th century.
Learn more detailed information on the following topics:
• The Benefits (benefits.htm1page provides information on the oral health benefits of fluoride to
individuals and communities.
• The Safety_ (safet�htrn age provides references and other information about fluoride safety.
• The Statistics_(statistics.hlpkpage provides access to data sources such as the National Oral
Health Surveillance System.
• The Engineering and Operations (en ' eering htm�page provides information on water
fluoridation technical assistance resources to state programs.
• Other Fluoride Products (other.htm) describes forms of fluoride delivery other than water
fluoridation.
• Guidelines and Recommendations (guidelines/index.htm) offers technical information on
programs, and Fact Sheets (fact sheets /index.htm) covers specific topics. See also Journal
Articles (http: / /www. cdc. gov /oral health /publications /journal articles htm #cwD , Related Links
links.htm
Featured Items
FLUID Fluoridation Policy Tool
This Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (Mix //fluidlaw.org/laids policy makers and
public health law practitioners researching and comparing their current or proposed policies with others
across the country to make informed decisions based on legal information.
Changes Proposed to National Fluoridation Level
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed an adjustment to the
recommendation for the optimal fluoride level in drinking water to prevent tooth decay.
Learn more about the proposed changes on Community Water Fluoridation: Questions and Answers
(htlp: / /www.cdc.2ov /fluoridation/fact sheets/cwf qa htm) .
See the HHS press release (htip: / /www.hhs.gov /news /press /2011 pres /01/20110107a html) .
See the Federal Register Notice (hgps:Hfederalre 'ster.,eov /a/2011 -637) .
Lack of Association Between Daily Temperature and Children's Water Intake in the United States
1 of 2 5/22/2013 2:40 PM
CDC - Community Water Fluoridation - Oral Health http://www.cdc.gov/print.dojsessionid==48A2E9EF2268496F35A84.
(fact sheets /totalwaterintake.htm)
The objective of this report is to describe the effect of maximum daily temperature on total water intake
among children aged 1 to 10 years during 1999-2004.
Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States (http: / /www.cdc.gov /nchs /data
/databriefs/db53.htm)
A National Center for Health Statistics data brief on dental fluorosis in the U.S.
2010 Water Fluoridation Statistics (statistics /2010stats.htm)
Every two years, CDC releases statistics on the percentage of the U.S. population that receives
fluoridated drinking water. The most recent CDC statistics show that in 2010, 73.90/6-204.3 million
Americans --on community water systems received fluoridated water. This is an increase of nearly 9
million people since 2008.
CDC Honors 65 Years of Community Water Fluoridation (65_years.htm)
Community water fluoridation has been a safe and effective intervention for reducing tooth decay for
65 years. CDC's Division of Oral Health honors its history and contribution to public health.
Building Capacity to Fluoridate (pdf /fluoride campaign lit review.doc) (® Word 1.2Mb)
This literature review was prepared as part of a qualitative research study about community referendums on
community water fluoridation. This review provides history and background information for factors that may
influence community decisions to adopt or reject fluoridation.
Surgeon General Support for Fluoridated Water (benefits.htm #sg)
The last five Surgeons General have issued statements endorsing water fluoridation.
National Research Council (NRC) (safety.htm #1)
The NBC's report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standard, provides the
findings and recommendations of its review of EPA's current maximum contaminant level goal for
fluoride in drinking water.
My Water's Fluoride (http: // apps .nced.ede.gov /MWF /Index.asp)
This component of the CDC Web site allows consumers in participating states to find basic information
about their water system, including the number of people served by the system and the target
fluoridation level.
IR One or more documents on this Web page are available in Microsoft® Word Format (DOC). You will
need Word Viewer (http: / /www.cdc.gov /nccdphp /shared /word.htin) to view and print these documents.
Page last reviewed: October 31, 2012
Page last updated: October 31, 2012
Content source: Division of Oral Health ( http: / /www.cdc.gov /oralhealth/) , National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion ( http : / /www.cdc.gov /chronicdisease /)
Page Located on the Web at http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/
DEPARTMENT OF HWAI<TH AND HUMAN SERViCEE
CENTERS FOR PJSEASE CONTROL AMR) PREYRNTI40M
SAFER • HKALTHlSR• PEOPLE-
2 of 2 5/22/2013 2:40 PP
CDC - Conmmmmity Water Fluoridation - Oral Health
http: / /www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION
Home About CDC Press Room A -Z Index Contact Us
Community Water Fluoridation
Oral Health Home
View by Topic
> Benefits
> Safety
> Statistics
> Engineering and
Operations
Other Fluoride Products
> Fact Sheets
> Guidelines and
Recommendations
> Journal Articles
> Related Links
l�ix ,
CC d �
Saving Uva.
Protecting People
CDC an Espahol
Search: L —3
0 E -mail this page
8 Printer - friendly version
FT Get e -mail updates
Overview
For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to
effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10
great public health achievements of the 20th century.
Learn more detailed information on the following topics:
• The Benefits page provides information on the oral health benefits of fluoride to individuals
and communities.
• The Safety page provides references and other information about fluoride safety.
• The Statistics page provides access to data sources such as the National Oral Health
Surveillance System.
• The Engineering and Operations page provides information on water fluoridation
technical assistance resources to state programs.
• Other Fluoride Products describes forms of fluoride delivery other than water fluoridation.
• Guidelines and Recommendations offers technical information on programs, and Fact
Sheets covers specific topics. See also Journal Articles, Related Links
Featured Items
FLUID Fluoridation Policy Tool
This Fluoride Legislative User Information Database aids policy makers and public health law
practitioners researching and comparing their current or proposed policies with others across the country
to make informed decisions based on legal information.
Changes Proposed to National Fluoridation Level
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed an adjustment to the
recommendation for the optimal fluoride level in drinking water to prevent tooth decay.
Learn more about the proposed changes on Community Water Fluoridation: Questions and Answers.
See the HHS press release.
See the Federal Register Notice.
Contact Info Lack of Association Between Daily Temperature and Children's Water Intake in the United
Centers for Disease Control States
and Prevention The objective of this report is to describe the effect of ma)amum daily temperature on total water intake
Division of Oral Health among children aged 1 to 10 years during 1999 -2004.
Mail Stop F -10
4770 Buford Highway NE Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States
Atlanta, GA 30341 A National Center for Health Statistics data brief on dental fluorosis in the U.S.
Contact Us 2010 Water Fluoridation Statistics
Every two years, CDC releases statistics on the percentage of the U.S. population that receives
....................... ...................•••••....... fluoridated drinking water. The most recent CDC statistics show that in 2010, 73.99/0 -204.3 million
Americans —on community water systems received fluoridated water. This is an increase of nearly 9
million people since 2008.
CDC Honors 65 Years of Community Water Fluoridation
Community water fluoridation has been a safe and effective intervention for reducing tooth decay for 65
years. CDC's Division of Oral Health honors its history and contribution to public health.
Building Capacity to Fluoridate (� Word 1.2Mb)
This literature review was prepared as part of a qualitative research study about community
referendums on community water fluoridation. This review provides history and background
information for factors that may influence community decisions to adopt or reject fluoridation.
1 of 2 5/22/2013 2:26 PM
CDC - Conn ninity Water Fluoridation - Oral Health
http: / /www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATIOr
Suraeon General Support for Fluoridated Water
The last five Surgeons General have issued statements endorsing water fluoridation.
National Research Council (NRC)
The NRC's report, Fluoride in Drinking Water. A Scientific Review of EPA's Standard, provides the
findings and recommendations of its review of EPAs current maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride
in drinking water.
My Water's Fluoride
This component of the CDC Web site allows consumers in participating states to find basic information
about their water system, including the number of people served by the system and the target
fluoridation level.
® One or more documents on this Web page are available in McrosofM Word Format (DOC). You will need
Word Viewer to view and print these documents.
Page last reviewed: October 31, 2012
Page last updated: October 31, 2012
Content source: Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion
Home I Policies and Regulations I Disclaimer I e- Government I IQ I Contact Us
awrv*e.xswsTUes *.Pemre.re' I Department of
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333, "" Health
U.S.A !..,.
Tel: (404) 639 -3311 / Public Inquiries: (404) 639 -3534 / (800) 311 -3435 g and Human Services
2 of 2 5/22/2013 2:26 P.