HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-10 Board of Public Works Meeting Agenda1011101 M 0-1111111,K01-111411111*101,211:4 'N'RVIR-A-za Lvit2t
A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, at
4:45 p.m. in Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street,
Ithaca, New York.
1. Additions or Deletions to Ag-enda
2. Mayor's Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons before the Board
4. Response to Public
5. Reports
Special Committees of the Board
Council Liaison
Board Liaisons
Superintendent and Staff
Other Department Heads
6. Approval of Minutes Items 1-6: 20 Minutes
6.1 August 18, 2010, Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes — Resolution
7. Administration and Communications 20 Minut
7.1 BPW Review
• Charter — Discussion Continued, start at C-62 I
Transit 25 Minutes
L.-M: mm-��um
8.5 Water and Sewer 5 Minutes
8.5A Request for a Single Water/Sewer Connection for 519-525 North Aurora
Street — Resolution
Page 1
.2 Highways, Streets, and Sidewalks 30 Minutes
9.2A Retaining Wall for East Clinton Street/Prospect Street — Discussion
9.28 Sidewalk Program — Status Report and Discussion
9.3 Parking and Traffic 20 Minutes
9.3A Concepts for Intersection Improvements at Hector /State /Floral /Elm
Streets — Discussion
• i•r- •
9.5 Water and Sewer
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 274 -6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting.
The Board of Public Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the month at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are voting
meetings, which opens with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating
and 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.
Page 2
7.1 BPW Review of Charter — Discussion Continued
Discussion will continue, beginning with Section C -60.
6.1A Request for Easement for 611 West Buffalo Street —Resolution
A resolution and Easement License will be provided under separate cover from the
Attorney's Office.
Award of • ntract for, Ithaca Fire Department a r • Generator
Replacement — Capital Project 737 — Resolution
An existing generator set is being replaced.
Award of • ntract for, Ithaca Fire Department • • r •
Replacement • -• ject 737 — Resolution
Please see the memo by Tom West and Brooks Hendrix.
9.2A Retaining Wall for East Clinton Street/ Prospect Street — Discussion
Delta Engineers presented the East Clinton Street Bridge /Prospect Street Reconstruction
Project to the Planning and Development Board in July 2010. During the presentation,
various retaining wall types were discussed for locations along the street where the terrain
will require walls. The Planning and Development Board recommended the cast in place
retaining wall with a stone veneer and that this "wall type be advanced as part of the project
design and that right -of -way acquisition maps should be developed to allow construction of
this type of wall." We are looking for the Board of Public Work's final recommendation of the
type of retaining wall we will submit in the Final Design Report for state and federal review.
That report is the basis for the project design and the construction budget.
9.213 Sidewalk Program — Status Report and Discussion
There is a well structured discussion of sidewalks that needs to occur, and for which I am not
yet prepared. I picture that discussion centered round the idea of "What do we need and
how do we want to get there ?" While I prepare material for that discussion, I think we need
to know "Where are we now and how did we get here ?" in order to have a framework for the
discussion. We have a number of current problems that need to be addressed in the short
term in order to have a functional and successful program. That would allow us a chance to
take a longer view.
Page 3
I have provided a few documents that indicate where we are and what my current
expectations are, as well as where we have been. I have allowed a limited time for the
discussion here to keep it focused. I believe you will find common themes in past and
current "problems" with the sidewalk program. If you begin to see the pattern, it may allow
you to ask specific questions or request specific data that will allow us to answer "What do
we need to build a successful program and how do we want to run the program?"
W.J. Gray, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
September 3, 2010
Page 4
8.1 B Award • Contract for, Ithaca Fire Department Station No. • Generator
Replacement — Capital Project 737
WHEREAS, bids were received on August 31, 2010 for the Ithaca Fire Department Station 6
Generator Replacement and,
WHEREAS, the 2010 General Fund Budget included capital funds for replacement of the
generator under Capital Project 737 and,
WHEREAS, Blanding Electric, Inc., 429 Commerce Road, Vestal, NY 13850 submitted the
lowest qualified bid of $37,495.00, now -• - be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby awards the contract for
the Ithaca Fire Department Station 6 Generator Replacement to Blanding Electric, Inc., for
$37,495.00, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute this contract, and that
the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to administer the same.
Page 5
E
Z
LU
z
0
0
11
U
0
>-
Lu
0
co
Z
x
Fn
z
E
2
w
Lr)
LU
Q)
x
x
L (1)
CD 00
w
LLI
Lo
L" 00
F-
m C7 3;
ED B o -0
E m
Z CN eq 0
w
0
w
0
C)
U
F-
ro u Lo
ro C) co
z
m CN :Ll (I
z
C0
LU
0
Z
U
z
p
LU
Z
0
4�
0
Ln
0
Z
or
co
u
cn
z
m
m
0 0
uj
'0
w
00
x
W
-0 o
u
x
w
U M
Ln
N
41 >
", :3 > �7 c
" u 00 Ln m
M m
" o cm
(U U) Zr m
F-
w
a) 6 -0
w
f--
Cl)
w 00
o
O
u
} r, >
E z
0
3: = iz�
4-1 0
0 0 0
0 LQ� O
8 m e m
4,1
z
(D CC
>
0
z
w
z
E
z
W
z
u
0
0
0
0
C)
LO
0
U
m
Z
u
0 a)
w
F-
u
w
F-
F, (1)
0 0
x
w
d Lr)
'a
x
LU
U C� Ln 04 u
U 00 C))
m
M 0 CY) or)
U 0 pmn pmn 0
9 Lh
4.1
U Ln (N
co
LO
U W>- LO
U)
CU 1,
R N
® 0
C-)
N Cl
0 Gins Ln 0
0
0 Q
, 0
CL CL M M
F-
U E41
0
CN a) 0
m > CL
<
�2 r, 0 a. L.L E
F-
F-
z
z
w
2
2
LLJ
w
U
w
z
0
F-
z
LU
z
0
F-
z
0. F-
LU
2
M F-
w
2
0
F-
w
0
w
<
Cl)
w
W
w
Z
ui
w
z
0.
ui
W
ui
0
0
U) z
�14 0
F-
V) z
0
F-
w
0
w
Z
¢
z
u co cc
w
E
>
u Cl)
—1
LU
>
m z a.
M LU 0
=3
m z a.
LU 0
CL 9
CL
LL
0
W
(D
LL F- m
0 IX
LU
cn
(U
'o
Ln
<
Y z 0.O
W
m
73
<
m
z 0.O
W
m
<
m
W
C LU a 0
W 0 LU
0 0
>- N
w
N
w
F-
ui
F-
w <
CL U-
z
LU
z
<
0-
z w
z 0
D
U) =)
Z
0 :3f
u
u �.: 0
<
M: w <
< < Z =)
<
D F v
LU
M
M LL O
< C) C)::
0
C<O o
26
F- < LL z
ui
w
I--
—
F- < LL
a. w
0 0
w
z
0.
m u u0i 0
F- a.
m 0 LOU m 0
WHEREAS, City staff has observed signs of structural deterioration of the Tea House (Small
Pavilion) at Stewart Park, and
WHEREAS, the Tea House has been closed by the Department of Public Works and posted
by the Ithaca Building Department, and
WHEREAS, a full evaluation of the structure will inform the City's decision on alternatives for
repair, reconstruction, restoration or removal, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has appropriated funds, from Capital Reserve #11 Parks
and Recreation, to conduct the evaluation, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby awards the contract for
Structural Assessment of Stewart Park Tea House (Small Pavilion) to Elwyn and Palmer
Consulting Engineers, PLLC, 213 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850 for an
amount not to exceed $2,200, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute this contract, and that
the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to administer the same.
Page 6
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587
From: Tom West
Brooks Hendrix
Date: July 2010
Based upon reports and observations that the arch
supports of the small pavilion at Stewart Park were
seriously deflected the Building Commissioner
posted the building as unsafe. The tables have
been removed from the building and the entries
have been fenced off.
On Friday, July 16, 2010 public works crews
removed bead board finish from the interior of the
building between two arches (south wall). This
allowed inspection of the framing. The wall is
comprised of a doubled 2X5 (?) top plate which is
supported by short studs at about 18" spacing and
a post comprised of 3 2X5's. Each arched opening
has a doubled 2X12 header supported by 2X5 jack
studs at the post. All framing except the headers
is extremely deteriorated and structurally unsound.
The roof appears to be framed with 2X dimension
lumber: Bead board was not removed from the
ceilings.
Each arch support has been shored by use of splints and whalers. The purpose is to
stabilize the support for the arch headers. Virtually the entire roof load appears to be carried
by the corners of the building. Because we anticipate that the corner framing is in the same
condition as the post framing the bead board was not removed from the walls at the corners
of the building. This stabilization will not permit the continued use of the building.
Page 7
With the perimeter of the building fenced to prohibit entry the posting of the building should
remain in place until such time as the building can be demolished and reconstructed. For
the duration of the scheduled use of the pavilion an alternate site and facility should be
constructed.
of
A
The jack studs, composite posts and top plate are all
Page 8
severely deteriorated. Short studs on top of the header extend to the underside of the top
plate. The arch is formed by diagonal knee bracing between the header and the composite
post. The arch of the post is then framed by a rough hewn timber member that forms the
base for the arch finish pieces.
The middle arch lands on a capital that now rests upon a pier or column of concrete block.
There is very little vertical load carried by the concrete block pier; this was ascertained by
the amount of lateral movement at the top of the concrete pier.
The walls at the corners of the building seem to also be framed with rough dimension lumber
although very little siding or interior finish has been removed. The corners appear to land
upon concrete pedestals that are approximately 10 inches tall. It is not apparent if the
corners sit on top of the concrete pedestals or if they are embedded in the concrete.
The exterior of the framing appears to be sheathed with W boards and cedar shakes.
The interior wall is sheathed with tongue and groove bead board. The ceiling is also bead
board but with a slightly different section. There is a small portion that appears to be bead
board sheet product.
Concrete foundation and floor —
The concrete floor is approximately 45' X 45'. The joints are out of level and some portions
of the pad are badly deteriorated. All 12 pedestals have settled unevenly. The corner
pedestals appear to have been cast on top of earlier, slightly larger concrete pedestals.
Demolition and re -grade is the least tenable solution to resolving the unsafe building
however, it is the least expensive. There appears to be no asbestos in the building.
Demolition and disposal cost would be approximately $5,000. Even the concrete slab would
need to be removed because of the uneven joints and the protruding pedestals.
Demolition and re -build would allow the building to be returned to use in a condition that
meets all current building codes. Reconstruction would need to address replication of the
arches, columnettes, pedestals, shake and bead board finishes, re- roofing and lighting. It
may be possible to recover some of the existing finish materials for re -use however due to
the likely presence of lead -based paints costs to strip and treat painted materials may be
prohibitive. The re -build option presents the opportunity to construct structural components
that could be fully hidden within architectural elements, for example, structural steel
elements constructed inside framed and shingled walls. The primary advantage to
demolition and re -build is that the work could proceed in a relatively linear manner from
foundation to structure to architectural detail which would reduce costs of labor and
management. The disadvantages include possibility that the funding for the work would not
be available, original or reasonably acceptable materials would be destroyed and the cost of
all new materials is extremely high. A rough estimate for this approach would be in the
$80,000 range for construction, $5,000 for demolition plus design costs of $16,000 or more.
Rig and rehabilitate would entail rigging, or temporarily supporting, the structure to permit
rehabilitation of the building. There are alternative methods for rigging that might include
lifting the roof from the arches or supporting the roof at the rafters. Rehabilitation of the
elements of the building could be planned to a degree appropriate for each element. For
example, only portions of the roof that require rehabilitation need be repaired or replaced.
The sheathing and roof shingles are in good condition and could be kept as they are. most
roof framing is in reasonably good condition while some rafters might only need to be
reinforced. This approach would still allow for constructing improved structural support that
can be hidden within architectural elements. Advantages to this strategy include maintaining
the presence of the building while it is being rehabilitated, reduced cost of materials
including the in -place salvage of existing materials such as siding and much of the interior
and the opportunity to improve the structural integrity of the building. The disadvantages
include the impacts upon scheduling and coordinating work activities, (for example removing
and replacing portions of the foundation separately from replacing the entire floor) and the
large uncertainty of the amount of rehabilitation required for portions of the building that
currently remain hidden and unknown. Direct construction costs could be less that $80,000
however costs of coordination could offset savings. There would be reduced demolition
costs although some materials would still require disposal at a cost of about $2,000. Design
costs might be about $20,000 because of the need to detail individual components of the
building.
Rig and restore would strive to reconstruct the building with materials and construction
techniques appropriate for the time that the building was originally constructed. The great
challenge with this approach is to reconstruct a building that will meet current building codes
while utilizing appropriate materials and keep the budget within reason. Some materials can
be re -used however their use may require extraordinary measures for clean -up, for example,
removing lead based paint from salvaged bead board.
Page 10
URPROKIWO
Addisu Gebre
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Minutes of Project Meeting
Prospect Street Reconstruction & East Clinton Street
over Six Mile Creek Bridge Rehab.
PIN 3754.57
lVelta Project No. 2009.044.001
860 Hooper Road
Endwell, NY 13760
Tel: 607.231 MOO
Fax: 607.231.6650
www.deltaengineers.com
As requested, Delta Engineers presented the above referenced project to the Planning and Developme'
Board on 7/20/10. The meeting was held at Ithaca City Hall, 3 rd Floor Conference Room at 8:30
The intent of the meeting was to provide the Planning and Development Board a brief summary of t
overall project and obtain initial recommendations from the board regarding retaining walls and bri-id
aesthetics.
• JoAnn Cornish City of Ithaca — Director of Planning and Development
• Joe Mieczkowski Delta Engineers
• Jeremiah Shaw Delta Engineers
The following information was discussed:
Joe opened the meeting by indicating Delta had been requested to present the project to the
board to give them a brief update of the project scope and to obtain the boards opinion regarding
retaining wall and bridge aesthetics.
JoAnn indicated the Department of Public Works will be lead agency with respect to the City
CEQR process. Joe indicated that Part I of the Full Environmental Assessment was completed
"We are a seamless extension of our clients' organizations"
1 forwarded to the City on 7/12/10. JoAnn also indicated that the DPW will be lead
agency the Planning Board will act in an advisory agency role for this project.
1. Increased bridge and roadway widths with westbound shared lane and east bound bike
lane.
Jeremiah noted that due to the increase lanes widths being proposed three retaining walls will be
required along the project corridor. Two will be located along the north side of the roadway and
one will be a replacement and extension of the existing retaining wall along the south side.
Jeremiah indicated the following alternatives have been considered to date (see color photos of
wall types presented attached):
1. Cast in place Wall with Stone Veneer (similar to wall constructed at University Avenue)
2. Cast in place Mall with form liner
3. Permanent Soldier Pile and Lagging Walls with Aesthetic panels
4. Precast Modular dock Detaining Wall
i fill rVrAOXWaTr.1 { a 1 It MYN I M I N I a 4 116NO I 't • alkyrel I my 1
® 'free impacts behind the retaining walls were also discussed. Delta indicated that a soldier pile
and lagging wall would have slightly less impacts to the existing trees as compared to the other
wall types, but all the wall types would require removal of a significant amount of existing trees
along the project corridor. Delta indicated that a landscaping plan will be developed as part of
the project and will include the planting of replacement trees in these areas.
Following the presentation of the various wall types and impacts it was the board's opinion that
the cast in place retaining wall with a stone veneer was the most appropriate wall type for the
project. Based on their decision they recommended that this wall type be advanced as part of the
project design and that DOW acquisition maps should be developed to allow construction of this
type wall.
JoAnn indicated that it was not t to attend the Planning r rDevelopment
Board Meeting on July 27b as previously requested. However, Delta will need to return in the
future in the future to present the final wall details and proposed landscaping plans.
Page 2 of 3 `We are a searntess e.xtemio7a of our clients` organizatioru
Jo Ann indicated that the next step for Delta is to complete the remaining parts of and
submit 1 the DPW for final processing.
® Action Items:
IF 1, 11 1 MIOWN AL I i f 1.
1. Based on the Planning Board's recommendations the City DPW needs to confirm that a
r 1 .. r f' advanced r. f• 1 .
K` _
project.Following confirmation Delta will finalize required ROW lines based on
length estimated rear heel and r temporary excavation ►fob:" back of the
If any of the information included above is inconsistence with your understanding of the items
discussed during the meeting, please call me at 231 -6670 at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
Joseph J. Mieczkowski, PE
Project Manager
cc: Meeting Attendees (via e -mail)
Doug Mills, NYSDOT Region 3 (via e -mail)
Page 3 of 3 "Ve are a seamless extension of our clients' organi,-ations„
Un
C)
w
W
c�
U
C)
w �
w
w
o �
� O
U �
� a
I
o o °o
° o 0 0
LO 00
N
° N
N
i
7.
E
<� a� U
W
Z
U �
W �
w w
� � p
U �U
W
w
O �
W
U
WZO�
�00�
ww�'W
w
OZO
� W
w�
O
vUw�
E�
o�Uwz
��waw
>0
az�
1j)
a�W(w
>U
WU
z
w
C:)
00
00
o
0
0
o
H
o
u
cn
<� a� U
W
Z
U �
W �
w w
� � p
U �U
W
w
O �
W
U
WZO�
�00�
ww�'W
w
OZO
� W
w�
O
vUw�
E�
o�Uwz
��waw
>0
az�
1j)
a�W(w
>U
WU
z
w
I-- 61—Id "d IS —1113 '-3 --41 102-1b9620Z\60KVi = I SN 3-
Wd 91,9171 = 3W11
tz—o
PI'm
3:
uj
uj
I
uj
y.
Ion.
831vani
CL
I-- 61—Id "d IS —1113 '-3 --41 102-1b9620Z\60KVi = I SN 3-
Wd 91,9171 = 3W11
tz—o
PI'm
3:
uj
uj
I
uj
Ion.
I-- 61—Id "d IS —1113 '-3 --41 102-1b9620Z\60KVi = I SN 3-
Wd 91,9171 = 3W11
tz—o
PI'm
3:
uj
uj
I
uj
IS 03U33H3 US (IMIS30
I
LLJ
__j
LLJ
2W 3-,TJ
JAC
l
al
-3
IS 03U33H3 US (IMIS30
I
LLJ
__j
LLJ
2W 3-,TJ
JAC
-M
AS MONO
I AS allivi3a
AS 03N ISM
LLJ
Z!
anl:l 3wli
3
��
\ \����
.
,
/�
\
�
/� � �
\ � \��
\�
�
�
� �
�
AS 03N ISM
LLJ
Z!
anl:l 3wli
3
��
\ \����
.
Cl-
AS 03N ISM
LLJ
Z!
anl:l 3wli
3
[z7
f
N
01,,11,E
�i,anad A331Ci1jmuls -I-wLq t61�u p®y su d ® U0 lS38 I A
� ®a��av�4+�e �e w�� s®y� =�� �^to9� aal = 3u�n �
Nd 5�1 • 31➢1
A�JB¢ d � 3F&il
ing
s.
5�
go
�l
MO
• AS 133M33 a A2 Tnvlaa A 03W=3 Mg 63NDIS30 AD 3MUH3 MI
3mj
Wd EZIHIT = 3411
IAN'
61),
M
O
U-
C/)
Q)
CA
O
Q
LL
C/)
r_
cl i
CD
m
0
O
N,
el3
0
1,-
cn
N
N
co
IV
CD
Cq i
N
00
f-
co
LO
a)[
CN
le
30 O
NF co
CD
V> LO
CO
co
LO
T--
cq
LL
CN
6%
G�
4:6
(D
C)
C
U)
LO
CD
Lo
C\j
r-
OF
Lo
CY) CO
CD
Lr)
O!
CD
Q)
r-
LL
0
0 (z)
CD
N
m
69,
cn
L)
0 C);
0
M
00
I
E
M!
C)
E
E
UL
2
0
CO?
C/)
Im
cn
f-
LO;
2
E
CO
40
co
CL
2
co.
10
.
(D
r
Oo
CD
U)l
is
c 2
6f)
LO
10
to
C'\!
M
co;
It
14
co j
cn
m 1
N
co
CO
tT
h' ;
cl i
CD
m
0
O
N,
el3
0
1,-
cn
N
N
co
IV
CD
Cq i
N
LO
f-
co
LO
a)[
CN
le
30 O
NF co
CD
V> LO
CO
co
LO
T--
cq
(19
CN
6%
G�
4:6
co
C> 1
i —
r
CD
U-)
C:>
C) j
m
1
i 001
co
IV
CO
00 (
N
f-
co
LO
a)[
co
to
30 O
NF co
CD
V> LO
CO
Ln
CO
C)
6m
cq
(19
CN
6%
G�
4:6
(D
C)
C
U)
LO
CD
Lo
C\j
r-
OF
Lo
CY) CO
CD
Lr)
O!
CD
Q
r-
LL
0
0 (z)
CD
N
m
07
L)
0 C);
0
M
00
O
CO
M!
C)
IV
0
ti
N
co
CO?
O3
CO}
N
f-
LO;
co
C),
CO
40
co
(D
�O'�
co.
10
.
(D
r
Oo
CD
U)l
is
c 2
6f)
LO
10
to
C'\!
M
co;
It
14
co j
m 1
N
co
CO
tT
(D
I*
M'
uj
I,-
Lo
co
w
CO
LO
CO
U)
LO
O ";
COi
ri
LO
C)
(0
r-- 1
C)
cc�j
C) 1
m
m
00
i CO
N:
u>l
U') i
(D
C:>
C)
LO
O
(D
061
co
m
cr
LO
co;
(D
N
C6
co
CD i 1
"r:
C
co
(N
I-- i
(01
C
to
C
a)
Lo
GF>
a)
O) !
CO
m
CO
CD i
pl- i i
M
06
(N
V
i-
[I- CD CD
r
O
0!
t,
C
r- z
L0
v CD
le
C), C)
C)
Q)
C�
O
Q)
CD�� 0
0
C:
to Q
co
Q0
Z
C) C)
0
30 O
NF co
CD
V> LO
CO
Ln
CO
C)
6m
cq
(19
CN
6%
G�
4:6
CN C> N
Q) co C) co
Z IZI- C) It
0369 Q
(D CD
6s
C\j C, C)
CO
Q)
Cl)
C);
O.r
x
C�i
C,4
r
O
0!
t,
C
r- z
L0
I`i C) C)
0
C), C)
C)
Q)
I- Gp� 69-
O
Q)
CD�� 0
0
C:
C\l
Q0
Z
C) C)
0
30 O
V> LO
CO
Ln
CO
C)
0
69-
(19
CN
6%
G�
4:6
>
C)
Lo
(A-
V).
OF
Lo
CY) CO
CD
04
(N
r-
LL
0
0 (z)
CD
N
m
07
L)
0 C);
0
Li
C:>;
L6
0
0
0 F F F F
F
OF
or
o CDI
Il-
CL F
0)
co
F
F
3
�O'�
CN C> N
Q) co C) co
Z IZI- C) It
0369 Q
(D CD
6s
C\j C, C)
CO
Q)
Cl)
C);
O.r
x
C�i
C,4
r
O
0!
t,
C
r- z
L0
Q
LO
14 �
CLo� CD
(N
Q)
CD
i 6
Ln
C:
ON1
:3
CO
Lf) I Lo
06
CD
30 O
dO
CD
C)
0
CO
C�
>
C)
Lo
OF
Lo
CY) CO
CD
04
(N
r-
LL
0
Q)
L)
CN C> N
Q) co C) co
Z IZI- C) It
0369 Q
(D CD
6s
C\j C, C)
CO
Q)
Cl)
C);
O.r
x
C�i
C,4
r
O
0!
t,
C
r- z
L0
Q
LO
C:
ON1
30 O
0
0 1
C)
0
>
C)
Lo
OF
aJ :3
tq
0
L)
r
0
0 F F F F
F
OF
or
CL F
0)
F
F
3
�O'�
co.
10
.
(D
r
Oo
U)l
is
c 2
O
co
(I
Print
From: Margaret Mulvey (maggie_mulvey @yahoo.com)
To: billg@cityofithaca.org;
Date: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:16:25 AM
Cc: rayb @cityofithaca.org; lynney @cityofithaca.org; carolynp @cityofithaca.org;
Subject: Re: Sidewalk Program
From: Bill Gray <billg @cityofithaca.org>
To: Margaret Mulvey <maggie_mulvey @yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 5:41:30 PM
Subject: Sidewalk Program
Lynne,
Page 1 of 3
You stopped in my office last week, Thursday the 26th, to request a written summary of what the city's
sidewalk program should consist of You wanted a document that you had not written which provided you
guidance for the program and laid out what you could tell property owners as you administered the program.
City's Sidewalk Program
Superintendent's Statement:
I want the program to run in its original form, similar to what we inherited and ran from the mid 1980's until
the early 2000's, after making allowances for improvements in technology and procedures. I will seek no
changes in that program until after we have a functioning program that operates by repairing sidewalk,
improving the general state of sidewalks throughout the city, and produces timely bills for the properties where
the city has to undertake the work for the property owner. The program needs to be robust enough to work
down the backlog of complaints and outstanding inspections while ramping up the systematic approach that
would take the program to every area of the city in a ten to twenty year time frame. I expect a work plan that
will accomplish those two things, while being responsive to the city residents.
Underlying Legislation and Assumptions:
Sidewalks are the responsibility of the adjacent property owner {City Charter, C -73). When the owners do not
meet this obligation, or when the city is put on notice of a defect, the city gets involved by inspecting properties
and notifying the affected property owners of their obligation to resolve the condition of the defective sidewalk.
This system of inspection and notice to property owners serves as a public good by maintaining a reasonable
level of repair in the sidewalk system and an administrative good of protecting the city from claims against it
for defective sidewalk on City ROW or property.
Program Elements:
Work by Neighborhoods -Work is generally confined to a target neighborhood. This allows the inspection
survey work and the construction to be concentrated. It is believed that this approach will allow the
neighborhood to become familiar with the program, allow them to attract contractors and obtain competitive
prices. It allows us to concentrate our work for inspection, notices, and construction. It has the advantage of
concentrating improvements in a manner that is more discernible by the public and by Council.
Adequate Notice- There is an obvious conflict between a lot of notice for homeowners and short notice for
the city's exposure to "prior notice ". Experience led us to a period of roughly two months previously prior to the
city undertaking any repair work on those properties that had shown no progress on the needed repairs. This
http: / /us.mg2. mail. yahoo. com /dc /Iaunch ".gx =1 &.rand= a5lnigcedOr6r 8/31/2010
Print
Page 2 of 3
seems to indicate a staggered program of inspections and notices in order to keep a one month inventory of
potential work in front of the side walk crew and a two week locked in work program. This implies a series of
notices; initial notice estimated at two months, follow up notice at one month, and a final notice at a time when
crews can undertake the work in a period estimated at two weeks.
Notice and City Work- It is not the city's intention or desire to be the contractor of first choice. Because we
will be left the smaller, more difficult jobs as a matter of course our pricing will reflect our job history. It also
reflects our internal quality control standards. Property owners can choose the level of quality as one of their
criteria for selecting a contractor, as long as it meets our inspection and materials requirements. In addition it
should be explained to the property owners that the city will do enough work to return the individual property to
good condition by repairing both the "condemned" side walk as well as the "unsatisfactory" sidewalk because
we don't expect to return to the neighborhood for a period of ten to twenty years. The condition of the sidewalk
we repair has to reasonably reflect that expectation. Property owners can choose to repair only the "condemned"
sidewalk in order to control costs. Because they are the responsible owner, and in a position to judge the
changing conditions, and undertake the necessary repairs on a continual basis they can set their own standard as
long as it includes the condemned sidewalk at their site.
Tree Damaged Sidewalk- There is no official record of this policy that I am aware of, but it has existed for
my entire tenure and seemed to have been well established for more than thirty years in the city program_ It
appears to be the logical development of a compromise in support of the city's policy to have adjacent property
owners responsible for sidewalk but not allow them to have street trees removed that might be the cause of
damage to those walks. While collectively property owners would agree that a well established growth of street
trees enhances their individual property and provides many benefits, they would have difficulty understanding
their direct responsibility for repairs caused by a tree on city property which they do not control. They can have
control over the cost of their sidewalk by paying for quality work and providing a high level of maintenance.
They have little control over the the street tree, This means that private trees they do control and any related
sidewalk damage would be their cost. The portion of damage related to street trees should be well established in
the inspection because once it is ripped out for repair the inspection report will be the basis for reimbursement
of the property owner or for a credit against the city's bill to the property owner. Reimbursement should be at
the city's cost of billing for similar work which will be avoided. If the property owner gets a better rate from
their contractor we get information about the market rate, and can base our comparison of "similar work" on our
inspection.
Closing Comments-
I am sure there will be questions and comments from Tom, Ray, or you after you have read this initial draft of
my response to your request. It would be useful to receive and review any and all comments to assemble as
complete a statement of the desired sidewalk program that I expect the department to deliver. Some items like
reimbursement rates are open to discussion. I believe you operated a different approach most recently.
I want to reestablish a sidewalk program structure that worked, and have it based on a planning effort that
indicates the level of work effort necessary to accomplish the current work load over a period of several years.
If the Mayor's Committee on Sidewalks wants to modify that program I will work with their suggestions, or
adopt their change of policy, after they have been though the process of adoption. In the mean time we have a
workable program that has served the city for years and we are way behind in any effort to have a good
sidewalk infrastructure for the city's residents to use in a multimodal transportation approach to city life.
A recent article I read indicated that of a large number of city's sidewalk programs reviewed (45% I
believe) operated like that in Ithaca, with a cost sharing approach between the property owner and the city. The
remainder were split with 40% requiring the homeowner to repair the sidewalk and 15% putting the cost on the
city alone. It would be good to review these numbers before quoting them, but they will be useful to establish
for future discussions. Ithaca's sidewalk program appears to be in well established company. I believe that, like
democracy, the city's program is messy and frustrating in its operation; it just happens to be the best system we
have available.
h-ttp:!has.mg2.mail. yahoo. com /delllaunch ?.gx =l &,.rand= a5lnigcedOr6r 8131/2010
Print
Bill
Page 3 of')
http-//us.mg2.mall.yahoo.com/de/launch?.gx=l&.rand=a5lniqcedOr6r 8/31/2010
I ..
. .
Sidewalk in the City of Ithaca needs more attention. Andy Hillman has recorded well over 800
locations where sidewalk joints are at least one inch out of level. A large portion of sidewalk
notices first sent out in 2000 is still unresolved and notices sent that year were restricted to the
"worst of the worst ". No inspections other than complaints have been done since 2000. Claims
have increased significantly since sidewalk maintenance was deferred in 2001 and have not
dropped since maintenance started again in 2005. It is reasonable to assume that injuries have
increased as claims have increased. The City is actively "on notice" with liability exposure for all
the locations with recorded problems. People trip and fall on joints less than one inch out of
level and one -inch joints are non - negotiable barriers for some wheelchair users. That is one
reason why the Disability Advisory Council just passed a resolution supporting the sidewalk
capital project request for $700,000.
The majority of the capital project construction budget is returned to the City each year as
sidewalk assessments — adjacent property owners are billed for the actual cost of sidewalk plus
25 %.
There is a strong need to increase the amount of sidewalk work done each year. One way to do
that while minimizing the impact on the city budget is to hire an in -house city sidewalk crew. A
sidewalk crew is expected to do sidewalk work for approximately half the cost of contracted
sidewalk work,
Advantages of an in -house sidewalk crew include:
1. improved flexibility of human and equipment resources especially for emergency
situations.
2. additional equipment that can be used for other work when not needed for sidewalk.
3. higher quality end product - after initial training.
4. better customer service, response time of weeks instead of years, and no non -city
projects competing for work crews.
5. time and money saved writing contracts, bidding, doing contract administration.
6. staff continuity - minimizing need to repeat instructions, scheduling issues, property
owner concerns.
7. less property owner disruption due to better coordination and less work being done
incorrectly, removed and replaced.
8. opportunity to take advantage of partial work days when there's some bad weather.
A city crew would require far less supervision by the engineering office per square foot of
sidewalk constructed (compared to a contractor), however, if a higher quantity of sidewalk was
constructed, total supervision time isn't expected to change.
This proposal depends on full -year employees for expertise and continuity so winter work must
be included as a companion proposal to the sidewalk proposal. Winter work could include
sidewalk snow removal, creek wall construction, pothole patching, brick paving, precast curb
installation, guard rail maintenance and upgrades, railings, bridge deck repairs. Equipment
requirements vary for different work; however, a snow removal proposal is included as an
example.
Lynne Yost, Asst Civil Engineer
July 18, 2006
m
0
o
Q
� � N
m "
T
Q O O N O O O O O
W
U _ U
C
O nin I?q no E Z)
�r
- o 0 0 0 o Q Y 3
0— O
o E
a
ai 0 -- p o w
f/1 E ° A
® `° 0 d Y Cm y
U) 3 Oo �
O °o C E i 3 0 o O o v> > o
s
® N {� 'm Ea Jn U) N 3 c t`n
LL .a�
} .o a H m U N
® Q J fn (n
co R
Y
"� Q (O cD OO N 00 0000 00 0 0000 00 O 0 00 00 00 00
"i O "7 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 O 00 S
9 Q 0� O ti r O O O� 0 0 0 0
N C7 r
C O
Q
N V N N r p
o
m W a
m E m
e
n Q M O M
o N Q N N M
N N N N
m U
m
U
qqii T O u7 7 7 47 N 7 - - r �- - - ~ L an d
yyLqq E 0 0 0 0 0 C C O
LL
CU
a♦wi �- W
L)
m, ro K n a W W N Q o m
C r? R _o
® L ° O
ep om GJ m 3 _ U ao
a O a n E m o O
U s r~ iv
W, o c E c is _Y m to N o_ a> o o v :.i m E m �? m N x d m m c$i ®o 0,2
L. >. .Y W m. 0 3 -o m 3 N = E. E
2D > `� d O o` r`s ? 3'' E
2 0 0 in
C1 • • " d _ o � o N O U to Q 0 $ U' msoo Z
_ U VS Q D
_ } i7 t_ J Q co ci Z Z 3 v LD
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
William J. Gray. P.E.. Superintendent / City- Engineer
Telephone: 607/274-6527 Fax: 607/274 -6587
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patricia Vaughan, Chair, B &A
FROM: William J. Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works 0)�
RE: City Sidewalk Program
DATE: February 18, 2000
This memo is a follow up to our meeting of February 16, 2000 and my purpose is to
outline the city's current sidewalk program, its background and budget, and several discussion
points for your consideration. It is my understanding that you want to review the existing
program with your committee and then discuss possible changes, up to the city taking over the
entire capital cost related to sidewalks. The Mayor indicated during our meeting that he was
considering taking over capital costs for "residential property." It is my understanding that you
are not discussing changing the responsibilities or costs associated with maintenance of walks, so
I have tried not to cover this.
Background:
Cities and other municipalities have a wide range of approaches for handling sidewalks.
They range from taking full responsibility to giving the property owner full responsibility. Base
on my experience in communities, this is not a republican/democratic thing but develops in a
community based on whether the community viewed sidewalks as a utility or as "a property
owner's community obligation (like a mowed lawn or properly maintained house). It my have
developed because individual property owners undertook improvements to their property to
eliminate muddy paths in front of their homes or businesses and expected others to do the same,
while other communities got tired of the mud all at once. Our city was far more pedestrian 100
years ago.
City Code and Legislation:
The City of Ithaca's approach to sidewalks is laid out in the City Charter and then refined
and regulated in legislation of both the City Council and the Board of Public Works. It is the
duty of the abutting property owner to construct, repair and maintain sidewalks. They are
responsible for injury or damage due to negligence or failure to maintain. See C -73, Section 32-
23 B(2) Exterior Property Maintenance, Section 342 -18, Section 285 -5, etc. (Copies attached.)
"An Equal Opportunity Employer ,vith a commitment to workforce diversification." � e
®m
Page 2
Re: City Sidewalk Program
Date: February 18, 2000
People may request sidewalks at a location. If the Board of Public Works agrees, it must
hold a hearing, which includes the abutting property owners, to consider the request. The board
may originate the request itself and may direct the work be done based on public need or on
petition of property owners after holding a hearing. The board handles notifications of defective
sidewalks in a similar manner, with a public hearing. The costs for sidewalks (to install, repair
or for upkeep) is assessed against the property and billed to the owner. Provisions are made for
any protests of property owner to be heard by the board and the board can make adjustments.
City sidewalk budget: (no allowance for insurance or law suit settlements)
Budgeted Expenses (average year)
Annual Work (currently borrowed) $75,000 /yr
Existing Borrowings (through 1999) 74,200/yr
Operating Budget 800 /yr
$150, 000 /yr
Unbudgeted Expenses (Estimated Engineering, not Building Dept
1 x 12 wks x 40hrs x $35 /hr = $16,000
2 x 8 wks x 40 hrs x $25 /hr = 16,000
2 x 1 wk x 40 hrs x $50 /hr = 4,000
$36,800 $36,800
$186,800/yr
Annual Income (Varies)
Estimated less ($35.000)
$151, 800 /yr
City Sidewalk Program:
The city's program looks expensive. It appears to cost approximately $35,000 in
engineering efforts to undertake $75,000 of sidewalk improvements. The program is fairly time
intensive because a lot of cooperation and contact with property owners. The engineering effort
goes in to all of the sidewalk work done (public and private) during a year. The city's capital
project undertakes only the work that is left undone by private owners and the work we need to
do ourselves, including walks adjacent to parks, city buildings or tree damaged walks, which we
take responsibility for. We estimate that a similar amount of private work gets done ($75,000)
each year because of inspection notices, or because we are too close. A smaller amount
($25,000 ?) gets done each year as projects are built or properties redeveloped (407 College Ave,
3 12 College Ave., Video Ithaca, Rite Aide, Ithaca Town Hall, Cliff Street, Route 96 Octopus.)
Page 3
Re: City Sidewalk Program
Date: February 18, 2000
Long Term City Wide Cost of Sidewalks:
We currently estimate that we have 88 miles of sidewalk, which border our 72 miles of
city streets. If both sides of all streets had walks, we would have 2x72 =144 miles of sidewalk. If
you make allowances for walks inside parks or an allowance for the Ithaca Commons, these
numbers could increase slightly. The smallest sidewalk currently allowed is 5 feet wide and 4
inches thick. That sidewalk is estimated to cost approximately $6.00 per square foot installed. If
they are reasonably well built and maintained, they can last between 40 to 60 years.
Cost of Existing Sidewalks
88 miles x 5280 ft x 5ft x $6 /sq ft x 1 /50yrs = $279,000/yr
If the city had all 144 miles of sidewalks, the number grows to $456,000 /year. These figures
don't include any Building Department or Engineering Department time, insurance or lawsuit.
If the current work done each year is $75,000 public + $75,000 private + $25,000
developer = $175,000 /yr, where is the other $100,000 /yr to equal the $275,000 liability? It is
possible that: we have less than 88 miles of sidewalk currently; developers do more than
$25,000 /yr; private owners do more than $75,000 /yr; sidewalks last longer than 50 years; we are
building up a backlog of sidewalk work which will eventually become apparent;-or a
combination of the above.
Discussion Items:
This listing assumes that the discussion is centered on the city taking over the cost of
sidewalks, i.e. their capital construction cost but not their maintenance.
1) Who gets favored status? All property owners? Only residential property? Eddygate
Apartments or only owner occupied one and two family homes?
2) Does new development pay for new sidewalks and the city only repairs and replaces
existing sidewalk? What about redevelopment projects?
3) Liability status issues should be reviewed with our attorney, insurance carrier and risk
manager. Our current status is very good according to our insurance carrier and their
attorney because we have a well - established and reasonable program.
4) Liability and responsibility issues can get messy if the ownership (capital cost) and
maintenance /upkeep are with different parties. The attitude of the maintaining party
will change if they are not responsible for the ownership cost. The life expectancy of
the item will logically decrease.
5) Are sidewalks within driveways part of the driveway or are they sidewalks?
Page 4
Re: City Sidewalk Program
Date: February 18, 2000
6) Are retaining walls supporting the sidewalks, part of the sidewalk?
7) A fair number of locations that do not have sidewalks are difficult to build on. Will
the demand grow for sidewalks if they are a public cost? A similar question applies
to low volume residential areas, which don't currently have sidewalks?
8) Who will be the last property owner billed for new sidewalks?
WJG /dlp
cc: Tom West, Civil Engineer
Rick Ferrel, Asst. Supt. for Streets and Facilities
Larry Fabbroni, Asst. Supt. for Water and Sewer
Patricia Dunn, Asst. City Attorney
Dominick Cafferillo, City Controller
UITY OF 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Engineer's Office (607)274 -6530
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tom West, Civil Engineer
Date: May 20, 1996
Re: Sidewalk and curb assessments
Just a reminder on the City Code's position regarding assessments for street
improvements. I have also included a summary of assessments for property owners along
Esty Street.
Curbing - Except In seven residential zones, (R -1 a, R -2a R -3a, R -U, R -1 b, R -2b, R -3b),
50% of the cost of original curbing is apportioned to abutting owners. The curbing
assessment is based upon the frontage of the property (C -89D). Esty Street properties are all
designated as Industrial or Business zones (1 -1 and B -2a). There is no record of curbing
having ever been installed on Esty Street.
Driveway aprons - As indicated in the City Code, drives shall be hard surfaced with
concrete (325- 20C(1)). The construction of driveway access shall be at the owner's expense
(C- 73A(3)). There will be no expense for owners who have existing improved driveway
access.
The driveway aprons and curb cuts were designed based upon the needs described by
the owners. The design process was explained to the owners during our discussion. The
basic tenet of design was that the largest vehicle using the driveway should be able to access
the property without driving into the opposing lane of traffic and without driving over sidewalks
and tree lawns.
Sidewalks - New sidewalk construction can be directed by the Board of Public Works.
Such new sidewalks shall be constructed at the abutting owner's expense (C -73).
Estimates for sidewalk and driveway aprons have been provided for you and the
owner's of properties along Esty Street. Since driveway needs were discussed with all owners
(except Freedman) the cost of sidewalk crossing driveways was incorporated with the cost of
the driveway access. In the event that owners decide that perhaps they can live with narrower
driveways the cost estimate for apron will decrease but there will be some increase in the
cost of sidewalk. Since the question before the Board is whether sidewalks should be.
constructed the summary tries to separate the cost of aprons (owner's prerogative) and
sidewalk (Board prerogative).
M M (D N Lo U) N Ln M "4-
Cl) m CD r- CO M M N M M t` O M M N CO M 1- M LC) N
(� N 6,3, M N M :- CD (`- O
61} Era e1'
f
O
i-
I- M000U)OLOMO
U) M M V M N e7' (D LO LO
O r(DMMOct0"TN
(� N6'�,N6')"N --NN
E13 64 63 ba 69- bl) ba
LO 0 0 0 C) 0 (D Lr) O
Y tiC NAY LO Nrl- CtO
LD M M LO Ln
W
U)
F- O(D OOOLnOLDLO
(n 6q 64 6-- Ef} 6-, CO LD. i` O)
0 �O VtO
O N
60- 64 64 64
w
0 0 0 0 0 0 00
M r LO =
z M O LO 6)
p N
_ D�
Q
W
1 0
�y Ln CO CD N O O o7 00 M
LL LO M M LO - f O O CO
O M CO O N CO CO N N �-
(f3 4F} EA 64 64 64 �- c- r-
U (f} 64 64
m
U U
L!') tl- IT M O O N N N
O) M O N m O d" ,;3' m
z Q M M
W F r
z
U) C�
LL
'W^
vJ C C
c6 (6 CJ
co LU z E E
(D J 'a �o 70 O _j .0
. (IJ >a� O ai W C M 0 O
O J> LL LL LL m W L1 m
w N
w m o
O
> O O Y
CU t� cn m X 3 a o
U) O c) -0 M z v m m
cL :3 -0 o>-- O -p
W n co 1:j z c��_
C -73D_ Assessments ei.,
for sidewalk improvements.
C- 73D(1) Determination; apportionment of cost. The determination of
cost, apportionment and assessment of any sidewalk improvement under
C -732 shall be governed by the provisions relating to improvement
assessments, except that the entire cost thereof shall be deemed to
benefit the adjoining owners.
325 -20C. Parking areas in business or industrial districts. Plans shall
be submitted for all employee, customer and /or public parking areas in
business and industrial districts, and a permit therefore shall be obtained
from the Building Commissioner prior to construction. The plans shall
conform to the following regulations and standards.
325- 20C(1). Access. Entrance and /or exit drives must be hard - surfaced
with concrete from the street to the sidewalk and to the required
building setback line and shall be at least twelve (12) feet wide and
shall have clear visibility.
325- 20C(2). Required front yard. Front yards shall conform to the
requirements of the district in which the parking lot is located.
325- 20C(3). Draining. Runoff water shall be collected and transmitted
or piped to the nearest storm sewer in accordance with this Code or, if a
storm sewer is not available, then through underground piping to the
street gutter, and such piping shall conform to the rules and regulations
of the Board of Public Works applying thereto.
325- 20C(4). Surface; The surface of the parking lot shall conform to
C -89D. Assessment of cost for construction of curbs and gutters. The
cost of original curbs and gutters, when constructed or installed in
connection with the original paving of a street anywhere in the city or
when constructed or installed in connection with already existing streets
in the city, except in those areas of the city zoned R -la, R -2a, R -3a, R -U,
R- -lb, R -2b and R -3b, shall be apportioned as follows: Fifty ..percent (500)
Of such cost shall be a charge against the city at large, and the remainder
shall be a charge against the abutting property owners, apportioned
according to their respective front- footages. The cost of construction,
installation, renewal or repair of curbs and gutters for already existing
Paved streets in zoned areas of the city designated R -la, R -2a, R -3a, R -U,
R -lb, R -2b and R -3b shall be a charge upon the city at large. [Amended
4- 5-1978 by L.L. No. 3- 1978; 12 -7 -1983 by L.L. No. 19831
C -73. SIDEWALKS_
C -73A. Construction and repair.
C- 73A(1). Authority. The Board of Public Works shall have jurisdiction
over the construction, repair and maintenance of all sidewalks,
approaches and street driveways abutting any of the streets, highways,
alleys and public places in the city and shall have power to make rules
and regulations with respect thereto, relating to materials, grade,
location, manner and method of construction, dimensions and all other
matters in connection therewith not inconsistent with the provisions of
this section.
C- 73A(2). Duty of owner. The owner of lands abutting any such street,
highway, alley or other public place in the city shall construct, repair
and maintain the sidewalks, approaches or street driveways adjoining his
lands and shall keep the same in a safe state of repair and free from
defects and free and clear of and from snow, ice and all other
obstructions. Such owner shall be liable for any injury or damage by
reason of omission, failure or negligence to make, maintain or repair
such sidewalk and keep it free from defects or to remove snow, ice or
other obstructions therefrom or for a violation or nonobservance of any
ordinance or regulation relating to making, maintaining and repairing
sidewalks and keeping them free from defects and the removal of snow, ice
and other obstructions from sidewalks, approaches and street driveways.
[Amended 9 -7 -1988 by L.L. No. 1 -19881
C- 73A(3). Conformity with rules required; expense. The construction
and repair of such sidewalks, approaches and street driveways shall be
only upon application, in writing, to the Superintendent of Public Works,
without expense to the city and in conformity with the rules and
regulations of the Board.
C- 73A(4). Order to owner. The Board of Public Works, after a public
hearing upon not less than five (5) days' notice, given personally or by
mail or by publication in the official newspaper, may require the owner
of any land adjoining a sidewalk, approach or street driveway to
construct or repair such sidewalk, approach or street driveway in
conformity with its rules and regulations relating thereto and shall fix
a reasonable time within which such construction or repair shall be
completed. Upon the failure of the owner to complete such construction
or repair within the time limit, the Board of Public Works may cause such
sidewalk, approach or street driveway to be constructed or repaired
either by contract or by the Department of Public Works, at the expense
of the owner, to be collected as set forth in C -73D.
C -73B. Uniform sidewalk improvements. On petition of interested property
owners for a uniform sidewalk improvement in a street or on its own motion,
the Board of Public Works may direct that new sidewalks and street
driveways be laid on any street or part thereof pursuant to plans and
specifications thereof prepared and adopted by it. Before determining to
make such improvement, the Board shall hold a public hearing upon such
proposed improvement after giving notice to the adjoining owners in the
manner set forth in C- 73A(4). After such public hearing, the Board may
determine to make such improvement, either by contract or by the city,
under the direction of the Superintendent of Public Works.
I/
N
OFFICE OF
CITY ENGINEER
N
CITY OF ITHACA
10B EAST GREEN STREET
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: Tom West, Assistant Civil Engineer
FROM: Creig Hebdon, Junior Engineer (A
RE: Annual Sidewalk Work
FILE: Trans. - 050.0
DATE: October 12, 1990
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
After reviewing past work on sidewalks and present work
being done; with no change in the present format the following
work schedule should be considered.
Neighborhood
Year for Contract
1991
7
1992
9
1993
6
1994
5
1995
4
1996
8
1997
3
1998
12
1999
12/11/10
2000
7
This schedule is based on the attached map. The map shows
that in 1985, neighborhood #4 was done. With a 10 year cycle,
neighoborhood #4 would cone up in 1995 and we could follow the
past schedule from there. The schedule for the next five years
is based on what areas have not been done and the State's
completion of a massive amount of work in area 10, 11, and 12.
Due to the amount of work to be done in area 7, this area will
need a 2nd year to be completed.
CAH/dlp
An Equal Opportuni!y Employer vith an Affirmative Action Program"
I V
Sidewalk Work
PLANNING
NEIGHBORHOOD
YEAR
�T
CONDEMN UNSATIS
rr
1979 all over
1980 all over
1981 8 some of 4
1982 5 mostly
1983 all over
1984 all over
4
1985
3
1986 8
1987 3 1&2
1988 1&2 9 F-1
1989 1&2 F7
1990 7
L j
FIDEL— bit'�k
-D 01
�;^`'� ;�� �Y: \1 f � S � � . '',.`�,,',�° �TT� " :'cam `' � y.! i � t�::°ti - ;,� I � /�
1
j1
A,
v L7
L_J L
10(
,fit - .- / ' !,� � � �.,�� �,_ __,
17
f� ( C MAP 11.1
1970
EIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES5.1.
— , A
C- I T Y O r r CD l
ITHACA V
N E W Y O R K ° \\
crrr .u+.,..+c t0- - ;—f. 1-0 ,. `� '� ? i� 1• /� \`� [
a
I f C4
IQ
-
ramped crosswalk
f \
4" concrete sidewalk
J!
��
,
, I
I la-m, 1 I J
Ell
J.
zr
•�;� 1�
10
MAP 11
:::--:11`NE1GHB0RH00D BOUNDARIES, 1970
MEMO
TO: File
From: Tom West
Date: September 15, 1988
File: \swprogtw \swcrew.txt
Re: DPW SW Crew
In response to our meeting of September 7, 1988 here is
a proposal for a permanent DPW sidewalk crew.
The concept of a crew dedicated to sidewalk repair was
initiated by the Spannier report in 1978. A sidewalk repair
crew on the City payroll would obviate the problem of
establishing a budget for the repair program since the
budget would be based only upon the crew's salaries and
equipment and not productivity of the crew. Some aspects of
the current sidewalk program could be changed to the benefit
of the City by creation of such a crew.
Several aspects of the program for sidewalk inspection
and repair would change, however the bulk of the program
would remain substantially unchanged.
Sidewalk inspection should still be carried out by the
Office of City Engineer. Here the biggest change would be
in the timing of the inspection and the area which it
covers. Instead of a concentrated drive to inspect all
sidewalks in a given neighborhood, inspections would be made
on a weekly basis attempting to keep pace with the produc-
tivity of the sidewalk crew. Sidewalk notices would still
be sent to the property owners abutting defective sidewalks.
The time period within which the property owner must respond
to the City's notification should be kept to a minimum - two
weeks. Upon expiration of the response period work orders
would be sent to the streets and facilities division for
assignment to the sidewalk crew.
A seasonal or yearly schedule of sidewalk inspection
could be published in the newspaper in advance of the actual
inspections. Advance notice of inspection would probably
motivate many homeowners to initiate repairs themselves.
At this point another principal difference would be
that instead of an outside contractor performing the work,
the city could perform the work as it arises. This
procedure would minimize the time between notification and
repair. It would also stop the property owner from "buying
time" until the construction season and the contract both
expire. Upon completion of the repair the supervisor of the
repair crew would submit a worksheet indicating square
footage, time and materials to be charged to the property
owner. The sidewalk inspector would review the worksheet
and note any amendments, for example, credit for repair of
damages due to city trees. The worksheet would then be
processed for billing.
The sidewalk repair crew should consist of the follow-
ing full time personnel performing the following work:
1 Maintainer who would supervise daily work
assignments, plan and direct construction of
formwork, finish concrete, and complete daily
reports. The maintainer should thoroughly know how
to organize equipment, construct formwork, finish
concrete and control traffic.
1 Equipment operator who would assist in the
construction of formwork and the placement and
finishing of concrete.
2 Laborers who would assist in excavation and backfill,
construction of formwork, placement of concrete,
traffic control and clean equipment.
The sidewalk repair crew would require the part time
assistance of additional laborers on large scale concrete
placements
The sidewalk repair crew would require the following
equipment on a full time basis:
1 Truck with seating for four, capable of carrying
formwork, debris, topsoil and miscellaneous tools.
1 Backhoe or other excavating machine capable of
maneuvering in sidewalk areas.
1 Compressor and jack hammer
1 Vibratory pad tamper
Miscellaneous masonry tools including, but not limited
to shovels, maul, axe, hand trowels, buckets, darby,
bull float, screed and carpentry tools.
It is difficult to anticipate productivity for this
crew. A goal of 1000 square feet per week averaged over a
six month concrete season would not be unreasonable for the
first year. This figure would represent about 25,000 square
feet of sidewalk and reflects the recommendation of the
Spannier report.
In addition to repairing sidewalks this crew could
perform other tasks during the balance of the year. These
tasks would include construction of curb cuts for driveways,
construction of handicap ramps, construction of small
retaining walls, shovelling snow from sidewalks, minor
concrete repairs to city properties and repair of brickwork
on the Commons and other city streets.
On September 14 Bill Gray met with Larry Fabbroni, Jake
Blake and Tom West to discuss this crew. based upon that
meeting an annual cost for this crew was estimated.
Equipment .......... $15,000
Maintainer ......... $21,000
Equipment Operator.$21,000
2 Laborers ......... $24,000
881,000
Materials. . ..$40,000
$121,000
A substantial portion of the work performed by this
crew would be assessable work for which the city would be
reimbursed by property owners. Assessments should be based
on the actual costs including inspection, administration and
overhead. An estimate of these costs for sidewalk repair
would approximate $3.25 per square foot. If 750 of the
repairs for sidewalk were assessable this would generate
revenues of approximately $61,000. Revenue would also be
generated by curb cut and apron construction and snow
removal and costs charged on a time and materials basis.