Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-10 Board of Public Works Meeting Agenda-� �� [01 J a [$I FAJ a L IN 5. Reports Special Committees of the Board Council Liaison Board Liaisons Superintendent and Staff Other Department Heads 6. Approval of Minutes (5 min.) 6.1 September 13, 2010, Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes— Resolution 7. Administration and Communications (15 min.) 7.1 Mayor's Recommended Budget — First Impressions 7.2 BPW Review of Charter — Discussion Continued, start at C-62 7-10009��� 8.5 Water and Sewer (5 min.) 8.5A Award of Contract for the Water Tank Rehabilitation Project — Resolution 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS 9.1 Buildings, Properties, Refuse, and Transit 9.2 Highways, Streets, and Sidewalks 9.3 Parking and Traffic (20 min.) 9.3A TIGER 11 Grant — Update 9.313 Request for Traffic Calming Measures on South Hill Terrace — Update 93C Request for Parking Modifications on 300 Block of Mitchell Street - Discussion 9.4 Creeks, Bridges, and Parks (10 min.) 9.4A Newman Golf Course — Update 9.413 Cass Park Dock Use Summary — Update 9.5 Water and Sewer (30 min.) 9.5A Appeal of Water Bill for 622 Cascadilla Street — Update 9.513 Appeal of Water Bill for 104-114 North Cayuga Street — Update 9.5C Appeal of Water Bill for 109 North Cayuga Street — Discussion 9.5D Appeal of Water Bill for 205 Old Elmira Road — Discussion 9.5E Appeal of Water Bill for 804 Stewart Avenue — Discussion 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 Mayor's Recommended Budget — First Impressions I have just started to review the budget which was released to departments 24 hours ago. It is described in the Mayor's Budget Narrative as "a 0% spending level increase over 2010 levels," which is a problem for us. However, we will need to review the entire budget to understand the impact. Some items have been deleted from the budget, but others have been budgeted as capital expenses. The department will be before the Council's Review Committee at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 12, 2010. 1 look forward to Erik and Ray's comments. The "Mayor's Program Budget" has been posted to the City's website at cityofithaca.org (click on the "News" link). 7.2 BPW Review of Charter — Discussion Continued start at C- Do we wish to continue to schedule this item? 8.2A Request for Easement for 611 West Buffalo Street —Resolution I have arrived at a point where I am regarding this as a one -year license for something we haven't tried before. We can make a reasonable agreement and then adjust it based on experience. I recommend accepting the first three proposed credits in the last Whereas clause in the resolution, for a total of $916 against the adjusted annual rental cost of $1,306. We can terminate the license if we are not satisfied, or change the terms if a new license is sought. I am sure both parties will learn something. 6.4A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for East Clinton Street Bridge Replacement and Prospect Street Reconstruction Project — Resolution Attached is Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) for your review. If you agree with the findings, then we should adopt the resolution, which we need in order to forward the project to the NYS Dept. of Transportation in the Design Report stage. 9.3A TIGER II Grant — Update FYI — I read this article and thought you might want to see how long the odds are for our $12 million grant request. 9.313 Request for Traffic Calming Measures on South Hill Terrace — Update FYI — Attached is an e-mail that gives several traffic calming options for residential areas. I have asked Tim Logue to research these types of temporary solutions and to provide more information to the Board at a later date. 9.3C Request for Parking Modifications on 300 Block of Mitchell Street - Discussion Residents on Mitchell Street are requesting that the current "No Overnight Parking" signs be removed from both sides of the street, and "No Parking" signs be installed. Attached are copies of e -mail correspondence from Susan Blumenthal and Tim Logue, along with a letter and petition from Susan. Page 3 9.4A Newman Golf Course — Update FYI — Kathy Gehring has compiled information from the last time we seriously looked at the golf course. Due to the confidential nature of some of the documents, the large packet will be available in your mailboxes in our office. 9.413 Cass Park Dock Use Summa!j — Update FYI — Attached is an e-mail from Allen Green, Director of the Youth Bureau, about the usage of the docks at Cass Park for this past summer. 9.5A Appeal of Water Bill for 622 Cascadilla Street — Update 9.513 Appeal of Water Bill for 104-114 North Cayuga Street — Update The removal and calibration of these meters is being scheduled. I am hoping to have the dates available at the meeting. 9.5C Appeal of Water Bill for 109 North Cayuna Street — Discussion 9.513 Appeal of Water Bill for 205 Old Elmira Road — Discussion 9.5E Appeal of Water Bill for 804 Stewart Avenue — Discussion Please refer • the backup information provided in the September 22, 2010, agenda packet Attached are Erik's recommendations, based on a review • the data. W.J. Gray, P.E. Superintendent of Public Works October 8, 2010 Page 4 WHEREAS, James and Antoinette lacovelli (hereinafter "lacovelli "), owners of record of the property at 602 -612 W. Seneca Street (Tax Map Parcel No. 59- 7 -17), in the City of Ithaca, have requested permission to use an adjacent parcel owned by the City of Ithaca (611 W. Buffalo Street, Tax Parcel No. 59 -7 -9) in order to provide ingress and egress to a 14 -space parking lot proposed to be constructed by lacovelli in the northwesterly corner of lacovelli's property, to serve a 24 -unit rental complex to be constructed at that site; and WHEREAS, the City -owned parcel is currently a parking lot intended for use by residents in the neighborhood in its vicinity; and WHEREAS, the parking area proposed by lacovelli would in effect act as an extension of the City -owned parking lot, with ingress and egress to be achieved by way of a continuous north - south aisle from W. Buffalo Street, as illustrated on a site plan map prepared by L. Fabbroni, P. E., for "lacovelli 612 W. Seneca Apartments," dated 7/15/10; and WHEREAS, the Superintendent has reviewed this request and does not anticipate any conflicts in the near future, from a public works standpoint, with the proposed shared use of the property at 611 W. Buffalo Street; and WHEREAS, Chapter 170 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca stipulates that as a general practice the City shall receive value equivalent to fair market rent for use of City land by others; and WHEREAS, while the Board of Public Works has not yet adopted a schedule of fees for such usage, pursuant to Chapter 170, the City nevertheless has an estimate of the fair market value, generally, of (unimproved) "prime commercial highway land" (e.g., along Route 13), from a professional appraiser retained by the City, which base value is $9.50 per square foot; assuming a rate of return of 10% for the City, as the appraiser recommends, the fair rental value is $1.02 per square foot per year; and WHEREAS, the City -owned land through which access is requested has been improved by the City, which improvements include a concrete driveway apron from Buffalo Street, a concrete sidewalk between the apron and the parking area, and an asphalt surface on the parking area; and WHEREAS, the City's appraiser has valued said improvements (in their original state), and has concluded that they add $0.33 per square foot per year to the base value (for a total of $1.35 /square foot /year); and WHEREAS, to provide the requested access to a parking area at the rear of 602 -610 W. Seneca Street, lacovelli would require shared use of a corridor through the City -owned parcel at 611 W. Buffalo Street, approximately 15 feet wide by 130 feet in length (to the street line), comprising approximately 1,950 square feet, the fair rental value of which area, including the afore - mentioned improvements provided by the City (assumed to be 1,875 Page 5 square feet of asphalt surface and 75 square feet of sidewalk), is $2,632 /year; with standard reductions for operating expenses, the value is $2,450, or $1.25 /square foot (which value is intended to incorporate the effect of additional wear and tear upon the City's improvements); and WHEREAS, the use requested by lacovelli is not expected to interfere with normal use of the City's parking area by others, and therefore represents a shared use (of the access corridor), for which reason the City's appraiser recommends a 50% reduction in the rental amount — i.e., to $1,306 per year; and WHEREAS, lacovelli has indicated an interest in providing certain services for the City parking lot at 611 W. Buffalo Street, during the term of the license, for the sake of efficiency and at lacovelli's cost, in exchange for a reduction in the use fee; and WHEREAS, the Board wishes to receive the following services from lacovelli, the annual "cost" of which, if provided by the City, has been estimated by the Assistant Superintendent for Streets and Facilities, as follows, which amounts can be applied as "credits" to any license fee hereunder: • timely plowing and removal of snow from the shared access $200 /year aisle and from any unoccupied parking spaces in the City lot (not including "return trips" to the site during prolonged storm events or because of the presence of parked cars in the lot) • In addition to basic service described above, include "return $330 /year trips" to the site, as required, during prolonged storm events and to remove snow from parking spaces previously occupied by vehicles • Grounds maintenance (clean up, etc; every other week) $386 /year • Clean lot with Sweeper (once a year) Now, therefore be it $84 /year; RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the Mayor, upon consultation with the City Attorney, to sign a revocable license /agreement containing the standard terms and conditions of such licenses (where applicable), that would permit lacovelli to use the north -south access aisle of the City -owned parking lot 611 W. Buffalo Street for vehicular ingress and egress to and from the lacovelli property at 602 -612 W. Seneca Street, upon its completed development as a apartment building, subject to any terms and conditions of final site plan approval of the project by the City's Planning and Economic Development Board; and be it further RESOLVED, That the term of the license shall be one year from the "effective date," which is the date of substantial completion of lacovelli's apartment building at 602 -612 W. Seneca Street and the commencement of permitted use of the licensed area by lacovelli (defined as the date of removal of the barrier referred to below); and be it further RESOLVED, That the license shall be subject to an initial, annual fee of $ (to be paid upon execution, but to cover the one -year period that starts upon the effective date), which fee takes into account (1) the estimated fair rental value of the City land, as improved by the City (approximately $2,450 /year, after standard reductions), (2) an additional 50% reduction in said value due to the shared nature of the licensed area (to $1,306 /year), and (3) the value to the City of lacovelli's provision of the services described above (for a total credit of $ ); and be it further RESOLVED, That as part of the consideration to be provided by the licensee, lacovelli shall be required to take responsibility, at licensee's sole cost, for the timely and effective provision of the following services: (1) plowing and removal of snow from the central access aisle of the City -owned lot at 611 W. Buffalo Street and from any unoccupied parking spaces in the City lot (which snow shall generally be moved to a location not on City property), (2) biweekly grounds maintenance of the entire City lot, and (3) annual mechanical sweeping of the entire City lot; and be it further RESOLVED, That as conditions of the license, the licensee must agree (1) to maintain a clear, physical delineation, and appropriate signage, between the parking spaces on licensee's property and those City property, and (2) to restore the appropriate full, physical separation and buffer between 602 — 612 W. Seneca Street and 611 W. Buffalo Street, on the property of licensee, including a privacy fence at least six feet in height and any required landscaping, upon the termination of the license by either party; and be it further RESOLVED, That the license agreement shall be executed as soon as is practical, but the permission it grants to use the licensed area shall not take effect until the substantial completion of lacovelli's apartment building at 602 -612 W. Seneca Street; and the license shall require lacovelli to erect or leave in place until the effective date (as confirmed by the City) a barrier that effectively prevents vehicular passage between the City property and the lacovelli property during that period. NOTE TO BOARD: As noted previously, the City retained Pomeroy Appraisal Associates to assist the City with the establishment of fair rental values for land licensed to others. With regard to this license request, Pomeroy calculated the value of the underlying land ($9.50 1square foot) and the value of the City improvements (asphalt paving = $4.00 1square foot, sidewalk = $6.00 1square foot). Subsequent to the release of its chart dated 9120110, Pomeroy told City officials, in a conference on 9130110, that the City improvements to the lot in fact should not be depreciated (as had previously been suggested) for the purpose of calculating the rental value. Therefore, the total value of the improved land to be licensed (1950 square feet) is $26,475. At the rate of return recommended by Pomeroy (10% /year), the potential gross income appears to be $1.35 1square foot. With standard deductions, the net rental rate would be $1.25. Applying a 50% adjustment factor for shared use of the licensed space, the value would be $0.67 1square foot/year, or $1,306 1year for this license. Page 7 8.4A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for East Clinton Street Bridge Replacement and Prospect Street Reconstruction Project — Resolution WHEREAS, State law and regulations and Section 176.6 of the City Code of the City of Ithaca require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of certain proposed actions, in accordance with applicable law, and WHEREAS, State regulations and the City Code specify that the lead agency shall be that agency which has primary responsibility for undertaking, approving or funding the action, and WHEREAS, the East Clinton Street Bridge is located in the City of Ithaca and carries East Clinton Street (State Route 96B) over Six Mile Creek, and Prospect Street is a continuation of Route 96B from the eastern limits of East Clinton Street to South Aurora Street, and WHEREAS, the East Clinton Street Bridge has been rehabilitated numerous times and is in poor condition with areas of severe deterioration, and WHEREAS, Prospect Street and East Clinton Street were built in 1919, with a concrete base laid over native soils and surfaced with bricks, and that concrete base has deteriorated significantly, causing unstable conditions and potholes, and WHEREAS, to improve the streets to accommodate the current level of use, and to render them safer for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, the City of Ithaca retained Delta Engineers, Architects and Surveyors, to prepare a proposed design for the City's replacement of the bridge and reconstruction of the street, and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2010, the Board of Public Works declared to act as a lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed replacement of the Clinton Street bridge and reconstruction of Prospect Street , and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) part II, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the LEAF Part II, and RESOLVED, That Board of Public Works, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the LEAF, and be it further RESOLVED, That Board of Public Works, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and and requests that staff provide notice of the same to all involved and interested agencies. 9MCPeO ghee nstrucoopt M',ec� PART 2 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDES a :` Small to -Potential Can Impact be L Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Reduced by Eyes No ;Moderate Large project Impact Impact Change? Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds 10 %. Yes M No etaining walls and roadway construction) Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of parking facility /area for 50 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. LlYes []No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the site? (i.e. cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.) Dyes W No !Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? (Under article 15 or 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) QYes ® No Developable area of site contains a protected water body Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Small to Potential Can Impact be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? []Yes ® No LlYes []No Page 9 of 20 4. Will project affect any non - protected existing or new body of ®Yes [I No A 10 %increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake or the Cayuga Inlet? (Six Mile Creek) Other impacts: Small to Potential Can Impact be Moderate Large Reduced by Impact Impact Project Change? 15. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Small to potential Large ®Yes No Moderate Impact Impact Troject will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have 3 ,approval to serve proposed project. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. ;Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Other impacts: 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns or surface water runoff? QYes N No Project would impede floodwater flows. []Yes [] No ®Yes L] No � � f Dyes [] No Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? DYes []No []Yes []No Page 10 of 20 Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Other impacts: 7. Will project affect air quality? []Yes No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8- hour period per day. Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24 -hour day. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Other impacts: (IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANEMIALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? LlYes R No Reduction of any species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non - threatened or non - endangered species? QYes N No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal or more than 112 acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts: sin__ ;Potential Large ; Can Impact be Small to Reduced by Moderate Impact Impact Project Change? Dyes L] No + Can Impact be Small to Moderate ; Potential Reduced by Impact Large Impact project Change? Small to Potential Moderate Impact Large Impact Dyes L] No ®Yes []No []Yes []No FlYes R No Can Impact be Reduced by Project Change? QYes ❑ No Oyes ®No Page 11 of 20 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE 14. Will the proposed action affect views, vistas or the Small to potential barge Can Impact be visual character of the neighborhood or community? Moderate Impact Reduced by Yes N No Impact Project Change? Proposed land uses, or proposed action components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current Yes No surrounding land use patterns, whether man -made or natural. Proposed land use, or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will { Yes No eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Proposed action will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views ]mown to be important to the LYes ® No area. Other impacts: ®Ye s ® No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure Small to potential Large Can Impact be of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Moderate { Impact Reduced by ®Y. es No Impact Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or Small to Can Impact be quality of existing or future open spaces or Potential Large Moderate Reduced by recreational opportunities? Impact ❑Yes No Impact Project Change? f The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational QYes ❑ No Page 12 of 20 opportunity. -- ---- - --- A major reduction of an open space important to the! L]Yes L] No community. Other impacts: []Yes No I I 13. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a Small to Can Impact be critical environmental area (CEA)by a local or Moderate Potential Large Impact z Reduced by Proj( state agency? Impact Change? r.-lv.es W No Action to locate within a UNA or impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION L]Yes No Dyes No Dyes L] No 70�5 IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's; sources of fuel or energy supply? Dyes R No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Small to Moderate Impact Can Impact be Potential Large Impact Reduced by Project Change? f. DYes D No Page 13 of 20 Proposed action requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply F]Yes []No system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Other impacts: L]Yes ® No IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance during construction of or after completion of this Small to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced proposed action? _ Impact Impact by Project Change? ®Yes []No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, []Yes No or other sensitive facility? Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour Yes L] No per day) Proposed action will produce operating noise { exceeding the local ambient noise levels for LlYes ® No noise outside of structure. Proposed action will remove natural barriers' that would act as a noise screen. (Tree QYes No removal) Other impacts: []Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safe ? Small to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced Yes No Impact Impact by Project Change? Proposed action will cause a risk of explosion; or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the ®Yes No event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic low -level discharge or emission. f Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. Toxic, i ❑Y No poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Page 14 of 20 Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Proposed action will result in the handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi- solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Use of any chemical for de- icing, soil stabilization or the control of vegetation, insects or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. L]Yes []No Dyes L] No Yes ❑ No Other impacts: L]Yes [] No IMPACT GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character ` Small to Potential Large Can Impact be Reduced by of the existing community? ®Yes No Moderate Impact t Impact Project Change? The population of the City in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow r' r L]Yes No by more than 5% of resident human population. s _.. The municipal budgets for capital' expenditures or operating services will QYes F1 No increase by more than 5% per year as a t result of this proposed action. Proposed action will conflict with officially []Yes ®No adopted plans or goals Proposed action will cause a change in the ❑Yes ❑ No density of land use. The proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or QYes L] No areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for Yes No additional community services (e.g. schools, Page 15 of 20 police, and fire, etc. Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Other impacts: 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? ®Yes N No Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the proposed action or have not been contacted. Objections to the proposed action from within the community. Yes L] No If any action in part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to part 3. Page 16 of 20 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has three steel potable water storage tanks located at Maple Avenue, Cornell Street, and Oakwood Lane, and WHEREAS, the Maple Avenue tank was originally constructed in 1911 and the Cornell Street and Oakwood Lane Tanks were constructed in 1936, and WHEREAS, the last complete paint job on each tank was conducted in the early 1990's, and WHEREAS, each tank is currently not in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations pertaining to worker safety and access, needing safety rails, proper venting, accesses, ladders, etc., and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca contracted with Tank Industry Consultants (TIC) for professional inspection services in August 2009 to identify specific internal and external structural, surface, safety, and other improvement needs for each tank, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca solicited Requests for Proposals for professional engineering design and bid services and later contracted for such services with T.G. Miller Engineers & Surveyors, P.C. on May 10, 2010, and WHEREAS, TIC and T.G. Miller revealed several necessary, unforeseen improvements vital to the rehabilitation of each tank, including complete roof replacement, extensive structural repairs to existing support members, additional steel repairs than those originally anticipated, and mandatory usage of more expensive, low volatile solid paint technology to meet recent health department regulations, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is desirous in entering into a contract for a rehabilitation project on each tank for inclusive surface preparation, repainting, roof replacement, general repairs, and safety updates, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca advertised for bids for the "City of Ithaca Water Tank Rehabilitation Project" on August 12, 2010, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca received and opened bids for such work on August 31, 2010, and WHEREAS, the low bidder for the project was R. De Vincentis Construction, Inc. of Binghamton, New York, for the base bid of $1,533,950 with alternate add -on costs for roof replacement on the Maple Avenue Tank for $98,000 and the Oakwood Lane Tank for $145,000, and WHEREAS, it is in the professional opinion of the staff of the Water & Sewer Division of Public Works that the City of Ithaca ensure that roofing is replaced for each tank so as to increase the expected lifespan of the structures, and Page 9 WHEREAS, on October 6, 2010, City of Ithaca Common Council unanimously approved budgeting toward a total project cost of $2,004,645 which includes items for the project base bid, alternate funding for Maple Avenue and Oakwood Lane roof replacement, contingency, and remaining preparatory site work, and WHEREAS, a Notice of Award has been prepared for R. De Vincentis Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,776,950, which initiates contract document preparation for said project; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards the City of Ithaca Water Tank Rehabilitation Project to R. De Vincentis Construction, Inc. by official Notice of Award with funds derived from Capital Project 513 and authorizes the Mayor to execute the same. Page 10 CITY OF ITHACA 510 First Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -3506 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • WATER AND SEWER DIVISION Telephone: 607 /272 -1717 Fax: 607/277 -5028 October 14, 2010 Mr. Robert DeVincentis R. DeVincentis Construction, Inc. One Brick Avenue Binghamton, New York 13901 Re: Notice of Award City of Ithaca Tank Rehabilitation Project City of Ithaca, New York Dear Mr. DeVincentis: On August 31, 2010, the City of Ithaca conducted a bid opening for the above referenced potable water tank rehabilitation project. Upon review of the packages received, your firm has been identified as the apparent low bidder and the City intends to award the contract to your firm as per the cost proposal provided by your company in Article 5 of the Bid Form; summarized below. In addition, as indicated in a successive September 21, 2010 letter, DeVincentis Construction, Inc. will be using Conservatek as the specified supplier for tank domes with no change in bid price. This letter has been referenced in Article 8 of the Agreement and as such, made part of this contract. Total Base Bid $1,533,950.00 Add Cost for Maple Ave Tank Roof $98,000.00 Add Cost for Oakwood Lane Tank Roof $145,000.00 Total Contract Price: $1,776,950.00 By copy of this letter, the City has arranged for the delivery of four (4) copies of the conformed Contract Documents to your firm for execution of the Agreement contained therein. Additional copies of the Contract Documents can be delivered upon request. Within fifteen days of the date that you receive these Documents, you must comply with the following: 1) You must deliver four (4) executed copies of the Agreement to the City. Each copy of the Contract Documents must bear your signature on both page 00500 -7 and the Project Manual Cover Sheet. 2) You must attach to the executed Agreement the required Payment Bonds and Insurance Certificates as specified in Article 5 of the General and Supplementary Conditions. Page 11 Failure to comply with these conditions within the time specified will entitle the City to consider your bid abandoned, to annul this Notice of Award, and to declare your Bid Security forfeited. The City will return one fully executed copy of the Contract Documents within 10 days after you comply with the above conditions, which will include the fully signed counterpart of the Agreement and such other attachments as maybe required. We wish to congratulate you on your successful bid. The City eagerly looks forward to the successful completion of this project. CITY OF ITHACA, NY IS (Authorized Signature) Title: City of Ithaca Mayor Cc: William Gray, PE, Supt. Public Works Erik Whitney, PE, Assist. Supt. DPW, W&S Scott D. Gibson, Engineer, Project Manager Steven Thayer, City Controller Charles Baker, City Water Filtration Plant Chief Operator Page 12 Infrastructure Grant Requests Overwhelm DOT : PaintSquare News W4 PAINTSQUARE to tie cmu l JPCUPaintSquare I Paint BidTracker I Durability + Design —News °Webinars & Education —Career Center —Paint BidTracker —Buying Guide _Marketplace — Featured Companies industry Events Standards Center —Publications Technology Centers _E -Mail Newsletters _— .Advertising Info PaintSquare News September 29, 2010: Infrastructure Grant Requests Overwhelm DOT Coal Ash Hearings Playing to Packed Houses ASTM Compiles Protective Coatings Standards Curing Agent Mav Speed Spray Processing Abhe & Svoboda Wins RI Bridge Project Article Keywords: Bridges Economy Finance Funding Government Page 1 of 3 WL& *4ja.— SEARCHTHIJEM'Enter Search Term d i 1 NEW TO: P y see what PaintSquare can help me do... Welcome, Guest Wednesday, Sep 29, 2010 Register ® Pe . NEWS Q I More Home / News / View Article te m q-3 Thanks for clicking through to this page from PaintSquare News. As a result of your click, we have automatically subscribed you to continue to receive PaintSquare News. If you do not wish to continue receiving daily news and features for the coatings industry, you may unsubscribe. Tuesday, September 28, 2010 Infrastructure Grant Requests Overwhelm DOT Federal aid requests for bridge, transit, port, highway and other infrastructure projects are overwhelming the Department of Transportation, with more than $19 billion being sought for a fund that has only $66-0 million. Nearly 1,000 construction grant applications— representing all 50 states, U.S. territories and the District of Columbia —for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) II dollars were filed before the August deadline, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood has announced. The overwhelming demand for TIGER II monies —the requests total m re than 31 tiros _the funds available —are the atest example of extreme demand for relatively few infrastructure funds. In February, DOT announced that it had receive 1 applications totalin pearl � billion fo the .5 billion available under IGE emand that was 40 times that supply. Infrastructure Improvement Backlog "The wave of applications for both TIGER II and TIGER I dollars shows the backlog of needed infrastructure improvements and the desire for more flexible funds," said LaHood. "This also shows the opportunities still before us to create jobs, to reduce congestion, make wise environmental choices and help generate lasting economic growth." The $600 million in TIGER II grants is for capital investment in surface transportation projects. Up to $35 million in TIGER II funds may be used for planning grants. DOT has partnered with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to offer the planning grants along with HUD's $40 million in Community t VersaFlex �c xv--7 The Polyurea People" Versa Flex Incorporated Potable water storage to chemical containment. Versaflex has specialized high pressure and low pressure pure polyurea membrane systems for every type of installation. http: / /www.paintsquare.com/news /article news. cfm ?id= 4373 &nl versionid= 604 &trackid... 9/29/2010 Infrastructure Grant Requests Overwhelm DOT: PaintSquare News Grants Challenge Planning Grants. DOT and HUD have Infrastructure received almost 700 applications for planning Roads Highways grants. "Combining these funds will provide applicants with one -stop shopping and greater consistency for community development projects that include both transportation and housing or economic development components," DOT said in a statement. DOT, HUD, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will jointly evaluate the planning grant applications. Funding Crisis The long- simmering crisis in infrastructure funding returned to a full boil in September, when President Obama proposed a $50 billion, six -year infrastructure stimulus plan. Still, no legislation has been drafted, and none is expected before Election Day —and probably not before the end of the year. Meanwhile, gas tax revenues are down nationwide, state budgets have been slashed, and the clock is ticking down to Dec. 31 on the extension of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU). The 2005 measure was set to expire in September 2009, but Congress and Obama decided in March to renew it for the rest of 2010. SAFETEA -LU is a successor to the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Funded, Not Spent Some infrastructure projects have actually received funding but have not used it. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, part of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, reported in June that nearly $120 million in Federal Transit Administration earmarks approved by Congress had sat untouched in FTA accounts for years and have now lapsed. Funds for these projects should have been used by Sept. 30, 2009, but were never spent for various reasons. "The $119.2 million in unspent transit funds are from over 150 earmarks Congress approved in 2006 and 2007 that had been set aside under SAFETEA -LU for communities to purchase new buses, plan and build light rail and bus rapid transit projects, and fund state and local evaluations of transit projects," Sunlight reported. DOT is now shifting funds from these lapsed earmarks to other projects that it deems appropriate. Grant Criteria The much - sought -after TIGER II grants will be awarded on a competitive basis "to projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region or metropolitan area," DOT says. Page 2of3 Want to save up to 50 %? GRITTAL® can save you money and is virtually DUST FREE. Developed as an alternative to mineral grit abrasives, it's proving to be a great success. http: / /www.paintsquare.com/news /article news. cfm ?id= 4373 &nl versionid= 604 &trackid... 9/29/2010 Infrastructure Grant Requests Overwhelm DOT: PaintSquare News Page 3 of 3 "The projects sought are those that contribute to the long -term economic competitiveness of the nation, improve the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems, increase energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improve the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and /or enhance the quality of living and working environments of communities through increased transportation choices and connections." Priority will also be given to "projects that are expected to create and preserve jobs quickly and stimulate rapid increases in economic activity," DOT said. The Federal Register notice can be accessed here. Add a comment to this news story h.„ The Technology • • Network t r On PaintSquare: Contact Us I About Us I Site Map I Help I Terms and Conditions I Feedback I Privacy I Web Resources @ Copyright 2000 -2009, Technology Publishing, Co., All rights reserved 2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1- 412 -431 -8300; Fax 1-412- 431 -5428; E -mail webmaster @paintsquare.com http: / /www.paintsquare.com/news /article news. cfm ?id= 4373 &nl versionid= 604 &trackid... 9/29/2010 October Traffic Calmer Bill Gray - Re: October Traffic Calmer From: Bill Gray To: Logue, Tim Date: 10/8/2010 10:27 AM Subject: Re: October Traffic Calmer CC: Gebre, Addisu Tim, Page 1 of 4 I 9.3 This made me think of the request from lower Hillview and South Hill Terrace for traffic calming during the Clinton Street bridge Prospect Street reconstruction. Did you start collecting traffic data on the area yet? I guess the project is not until 2012 now? We have not tried traffic pillows (cushions) yet. I not sure this is the spot, but it woould be interesting to see how they work for emergency response vehicle complaints. 0 >>> "Traffic Logix" <newsletter @trafficlogix.com> 10/5/2010 9:51 AM >>> r ON -, `' � ) r' a \ / View this email with images. tai +aRe'`4a ,?:i !-�f �..3�A€.��.f's`,�3�'�! .-.�.. (.8#;v6'3�°)' 15 -6 4 Temporary traffic calming often gets an undeserved bad name. Here are some common myths you may have thought true and some facts you may not have known about rubber solutions. Myth I: Rubber traffic calming i5 ugly Granted, rubber traffic calming can sometimes be unattractive. We've seen other manufacturers' products decay, wear out quickly, and generally appear as an eyesore. At Traffic Logix, aesthetics are key to product design. In this issue: Myths about rubber traffic calming Rubber traffic calming is ugly Rubber is less accepted by residents Testing locations is pointless Rubber solutions are only temporary Are you familiar with our rubber solutions? On the Streets Premiering Did you know? Traffic Logix Tidbits file://C: \Documents and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \4CAEF20Fcoimai... 10/8/2010 October Traffic Calmer Page 2 of 4 Our rubber products are attractive, sturdy, and long- lasting. Traffic Logix rubber solutions The highly reflective embedded highway tape used on our speed humps, cushions, tables, and curbing does not wear off from heat or usage unlike the paint used on asphalt. ro r Available in a choice of colors to blend in with the aesthetics of your streetscape, the taping enhances visibility while improving aesthetics. Our flexible rubber curbing can be used to create temporary traffic circles, which can then be filled with the material of your choice for a visually appealing traffic calming solution. With rubber solutions installed on thousands of street On the Streets s �fl across North America, our follow -up responses from city engineers and public works professionals are almost always the same. People like them. Some of what we've heard includes: "After we installed the portable [Traffic Logix] speed tables,, the complaint phone calls and emails finally stopped. Residents actually called to thank us." -JK, Indiana "The residents are really happy with these [Traffic Logix rubber speed cushion? products. I keep recommending your products to other cities that need help with speeding issues." -JW, Idaho For more quotes from our customers, visit our testimonials page. Testing locations prior to ,.nstallation is pointless Some believe that testing locations with temporary measures is futile. They feel that once a traffic study is performed and traffic calming is approved, permanent measures should be installed. However, in most cities' traffic calming policies, residents are the ones who make traffic calming requests. By the same token, a majority of residents can also vote to have the devices removed. Another reason not to use speed bumps on local roads. Amesbury to remove speed bumps due to unhappy motorists and exasperated homeowners. Next time try speed humps. Read more here. Premiering Global Traffic Network launches Mobile Traffic Network, the first system of its kind in the US to provide traffic alerts to drivers via mobile phones. The program is available to drivers in Kansas and Missouri. Read more here. t . file: //C:\Documents and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \4CAEF20Fcoimai... 10/8/2010 October Traffic Calmer Being able to gage resident response can be an excellent way to avoid costly installations that may be removed soon after. Rubber solutions can be taken out and reused on another local street while asphalt installations must be destroyed to be removed. Rubber solutions can also be removed for street resurfacing, to avoid snow plow damage, and in the event of construction. Asphalt would have to be destroyed and rebuilt in the same circumstances. Rubber • • only temporary While many think of rubber solutions as temporary, a surprising number of cities are using them as permanent solutions. In fact, more than 75% of Traffic Logix rubber solutions are installed permanently. While the solutions' portability and ease of removal make them ideal for testing streets temporarily, the aesthetics and long life of the products make them ideal as permanent solutions as well. Rubber products are premolded and preshaped so that they provide a consistent profile, imperative to residents' acceptance. They meet ITE standards, are simple to install, and highly visible. Cities who have switched from asphalt to Traffic Logix rubber solutions report that they are just as effective in slowing cars down. Page 3 of 4 11r ffiir t;atsalltl Traffic fatalities were the lowest last year since 1950. Traffic calming works! Read more here. Traffic Logix Tidbits We'll be exhibiting this month at the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) Annual Conference in Orlando from Oct 22 -27. Visit us in booth 2817 and see our traffic calming solutions live! Learn more here. Speed humps are parabolic in shape and slow cars to residential speed limits. They are a classic traffic calming solution. Speed cushions are designed as a series of speed humps that slow cars without affecting emergency vehicles. Speed tables are flat- topped humps that slow cars more gradually than humps or cushions. Traffic Logix Traffic circles can be constructed with Traffic Logix superflex curb. They slow cars as motorist traverse the circle. Questions? Comments? Give us a call or email us at: file: //C: \Documents and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \4CAEF20Fcoimai... 10/8/2010 October Traffic Calmer Page 4 of 4 3 Harriett Lane Spring Valley, NY 10977 866 - 915 -6449 www.trafficloaix.com info @traffi.clogix.com €11' Would you tike to send this email to a friend? brad Try Fr3d Click Here to be removed from this list file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \4CAEF20Fcoimai... 10/8/2010 (1016/2010) Kathrin Gehring - Re: 10/13 BPW agenda Page 1 m 9. -5 C- From: Tim Logue To: Gray, Bill CC: Gehring, Kathrin; Peterson, Carolyn Date: 10/6/2010 4:03 PM Subject: Re: 10/13 BPW agenda Hi Bill, Earlier this year or possibly last year, I decided it was time to repost some street segments that were signed for No All Night Parking because that rule doesn't exist and it was leading to a lot of confusion as to what all night actually meant. So we removed signs on University Avenue and South Albany Street and put up laminated signs notifying residents that the rule (the default rule for any street segment not listed in our schedules) would be Odd /Even. After some time we removed the laminated signs and the posts. Things went quite well. Both sides of the 300 block of Mitchell Street are also posted for No All Night Parking (meaning people can park on both sides all day), but because I wasn't sure if any parking should be allowed, I decided to wait and to discuss it with the BPW. I haven't gotten to it yet, but Susan Blumenthal contacted me two weeks ago and said she was having trouble getting out of her driveway at 305 Mitchell because commuting students (presumably) have found the 300 block for all -day free parking. It hasn't been a problem in years past, but this past year she's seen more and more people parking there during the day. We discussed some options and I asked that she submit a petition from her neighbors on the block so that the BPW can see how much support there is for which ever proposal she decides to pursue. I think at this point (but am not sure) that she wants to pursue prohibiting parking on both side of the block. In looking through the V &T code, I can prohibit parking on one side of the street without action from the BPW because the street is only 30 feet curb to curb, but it would take action from the BPW to remove parking from both sides. There are street intersections on the north side of the street, so if we wanted to keep some parking on the street I might consider leaving it on the south side. There are only 2 or 3 spaces on the south side of the street, west of 305 Mitchell. Susan and I also discussed removing these spaces because they are kind of on the inside of a curve and may not be very visible to uphill traffic. Removing these spaces would, I think, also go a long way toward improving her sight distance coming out of her driveway. Kent and I have also been talking about the possibility of continuing the East State Street uphill bike lane onto Rt 366. If the neighbors and the BPW are interested in removing parking on both sides, this would allow us to stripe an uphill bike lane and a wide downhill lane at least between State St & Ithaca Rd. Tim >>> Bill Gray 12:30 PM Wednesday, October 06, 2010 >>> Tim, Can you tell me why we would want to put parking restrictions on Mitchell Street. I am not aware that we have much parking on Mitchell, or that we have a problem. The street seems wide enough for parking on at least one side. Parking has a traffic calming impact in areas where it is allowed, especially on state numbered routes where we would like to keep trucks in check... what is it we want to accomplish? Bill >>> Carolyn Peterson 10/6/2010 9:49 AM >>> Hi Kathy, Please place Mitchell Street parking restrictions on the 10/13 agenda, discussion, 15 minutes. Carolyn (10/7/2010) Kathrin Gehring - Mitchell St. parking Page 1 From: Susan Blumenthal <susanb @twcny.rr.com> To: Kathrin Gehring <kgehring @cityofithaca.org> Date: 10/7/2010 12:35 AM Subject: Mitchell St. parking Hi Kathy, It was good talking with you yesterday. I'm writing to confirm that I'll be delivering the petition and a memo to you on Friday morning. In the meantime, below is the petition text, as you requested. Susan We, the undersigned who reside on lower Mitchell Street where on- street parking is permitted, request that parking signage be changed to institute a No Parking zone on both sides of the street. The curved configuration of the road, traffic volume, street width and the speed of vehicles suggest that on- street parking is impractical and unsafe. Sight lines for drivers entering and exiting driveways are constricted with parked cars, which contributes to dangerous conditions. Use of the road by trucks, TCAT and school buses, emergency vehicles and bicyclists narrows the passageway. Additional hazards will occur in snowy weather as snowplows attempt to clear the street. The number of parked cars during the day has significantly increased in recent weeks, which precipitated this petition. To: Board of Public Works, City of Ithaca From: Susan Blumenthal, on behalf of lower Mitchell Street residents Re: Mitchell Street Parking Date: October 8, 2010 Background Lower Mitchell Street from Linden Ave. to Ithaca Road is currently posted with signage reading "No Overnight Parking" on both sides of the street. This signage worked well for many years. Some residents occasionally parked on the street, such as when driveways were needed for contractors' vehicles, but on nearly all days there were no parked cars. The situation changed last year when two signs were re- installed near Linden Ave. to replace signage removed when Mitchell St. was reconstructed in 1997. A few non- residents discovered free parking and began parking on the south side of the street. The frequency and numbers, however, significantly increased this fall as Cornell classes commenced. Currently there are parked cars almost daily during the week on the south side of the street, typically beginning opposite Linden Ave. and extending part or almost all the way up the street. Existing Conditions The portion of Mitchell Street under discussion curves at both ends. Traffic volume is high and many trucks, TCAT and school buses, emergency vehicles and bicyclists use the road. The street is 30 feet wide and divided by a double yellow line into two 15 -foot travel lanes. Cars are moving rapidly, sometimes above the speed limit, especially coming downhill. There are four "No Overnight Parking" signs on the north side of the street and three on the south side. Affected houses are almost all owner - occupied with a mix of ages and families. Results of Increased On- Street Parking 1. It is extremely dangerous for residents to exit driveways because the line of sight for drivers is seriously promised in both directions. For example, I have to put the entire front half of my car into the travel lane in order to see when moving traffic is coming before I can maneuver out of my driveway. It is a matter of a few seconds before cars can appear from the curves in both directions. Other residents, including those with small children, face the same circumstances or worse, if they have to back out. Entering driveways can also require crossing the yellow line. 2. Traffic flow on Mitchell Street has been disrupted. Many cars routinely cross the yellow line to gain clearance as they move uphill. There are instances when two trucks are unable to pass each other and one has to stop to let the other pass. A couple weeks ago a car was parked on the north side of the street directly across from my driveway and my side was parked up. Traffic was essentially narrowed to one lane the whole day as cars and trucks slowed down or stopped to avoid oncoming traffic. I had to stand in the middle of the street and stop traffic so that a guest at my house could safely pull out. Another neighbor had to do the same even when there were no parked cars on the north side. Additional considerations suggest that the situation will become worse. 1) More people could find out about free on- street parking as the word spreads. 2) Conditions will be exacerbated when winter arrives, driving becomes more difficult and snowplows need to clear the street. Neighborhood Request Neighborhood residents are asking for "No Parking Any Time" restrictions on both sides of Mitchell Street. We have considered alternative scenarios and feel this change is mutually beneficial for residents and the city: people living on the street will be safer and the city will have unobstructed traffic flow on a major thoroughfare. The option of allowing parking on the north side of the street was considered but we believe that will only shift the burden and create similar hazards to residents on the north side and to drivers exiting Linden and Delaware Avenues. A lane of parked cars could serve as a traffic calming measure, but it is our sense that parking on either side of Mitchell Street will constitute a danger because of the street's geometry and traffic conditions, especially during inclement weather. We hope the signs are in stock and can be installed expeditiously since our personal safety is at stake. All it takes is one accident to make this a much more serious situation. We understand DPW staff has a lot of responsibilities, but we would appreciate if this can be a high priority item in light of the safety issues. We are submitting a petition with signatures from residents who support the recommended change. (10/8/2010) Bill Gray - Fwd: Dock use summary Page 1 M�� From: Allen Green To: Bill Gray; Carolyn Peterson; Daniel Hoffman CC: Jim Dalterio; Liz Vance Date: 9/27/2010 1:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Dock use summary Greetings During the deliberations about docks, dragon boats, clubs, appropriate rental rates, appraisals, etc. I do believe that Mayor Peterson asked us to report back about dock usage during this first season. Jim was kind enough to submit the following report which we are pleased to share with you. With regard to the 2011 season, based on 2010 season discussions, the sequence of events, legal considerations, etc. (as I recall them), we at the IYB will proceed based on the idea that "the ball is in the BPW's court." Please us know if there are any steps that any of you would like us to take in this regard. Best wishes, Allen >>> Jim Dalterio 9/27/2010 01:13 PM >>> Allen, I started observing use of all 3 docks at Cass Park on May 24 until present. Basically what I did was enter and exit the park using that route and make notes in my daily planner on days that there was boat use of any kind on any of the docks other than the dragon boats. Surprisingly there were only 2 dates the entire summer that I witnessed use of the docks by boats of any kind. On June 8th there were 2 canoes pulled up to the old floating dock, they were there midday and gone by the 3pm. On July 15 there was a motor boat that was tied to the open new dock that was there midday and I was able to tell them that motorized boats were not allowed to utilize the docks. The entire summer I received no more than 3 calls from people looking to dock boats there and in each situation it was individuals looking to dock their own motor boats and I explained that was not possible. The docks were used regularly by people fishing and adults bringing kids over from the nearby playground to walk out on. (10/8/2010) Bill Gray - Fwd: Dock use summary Page 2 Kayakers (many) and canoes (fewer) did access the cove on a regular basis but did so by using the sloped ground between the 2 willow trees on the south side of the cove and did not use the docks at all. This being said I did not often have the opportunity to view evening or weekend dock use but on the occasions I did the results were the same. M (10/8/2010) Kathrin Gehring - Fwd: 109 North Cayuga Street water bill "protest analysis" Page 1 From: Erik Whitney To: Gehring, Kathrin Date: 10/8/2010 12:13 PM Subject: Fwd: 109 North Cayuga Street water bill "protest analysis" Kathy, The analysis for this one, in item 9.5A on the 9 -22 -10 BPW agenda had the gear ratio factors wrong, the correct ones are as stated in my email of 9/17/10, copied below. thanx, erik >>> Erik Whitney 10/8/2010 11:54 AM >>> Bill, Here, my recommendation would be to let the bill stand as is. erik >>> Erik Whitney 9/17/2010 3:23 PM >>> Hello Kathy & Bill, The problem here was one of an improperly factory programmed gear ratio in the retrofitted meter register /head. This property had a meter head retrofit on 9/29/08. The Mastermeter retrofit had been programmed with a gear ratio of 236.39 -turns per cubic foot, the measuring chamber was a Badger Model # 120 which has a ratio of 44.63 -turns per cubic foot. This effects an under measurement factor of 5.2967, in other words for every cubic foot of water passing the measuring chamber only 0.1888 -CF of water is recorded on the register. Here the corrected numbers are running below the previous 5 -6 year historical average: Q-1 = 145 -HCF, Q -2 = 157 -HCF, Q -3 = 157 -HCF, Q -4 = 155 -HCF, Yearly Average Total = 614 -HCF. Here are the corrected / billed numbers for 2009, (the year in question): Q -1 = 90 -HCF, Q -2 = 85 -HCF, Q -3 = 95 -HCF, Q -4 = 264 -HCF, Year Total = 534 -HCF. So, for the year of 2009 Mr. Bilinski paid for 80 -HCF less consumption than on average over the last 6- years. erik Larry Fabbroni stopped in about Iacovelli project water & sewer connections on Buffalo Street, so i lost 30 minutes + / -. I'm on to the next one 804 stewart Avenue (10/812010) Kathrin Gehring - Fwd: 205 Elmira Road "Protest Analysis" Page 1 From: Erik Whitney To: Gehring, Kathrin Date: 10/8/2010 12:13 PM Subject: Fwd: 205 Elmira Road "Protest Analysis" >>> Erik Whitney 10/8/2010 11:52 AM >>> Bill, Here was the one for Lucatelli. I did include a recommendation that the sewer be expunged. erik >>> Erik Whitney 9/17/2010 2:02 PM >>> Hello Kathy & Bill, Please note a leak notice was sent along for the quarters ending in the March 12th, June 8th, and September 8th meter reads. Note the consumption for this property is very uniform each quarter dating all the way back to 2003. So i summed and averaged the consumption for each respective / corresponding quarter to the 2009 "leak" for the five previous years. The average for the quarter ending in March was 103 -HCF, June 125 -HCF, September 122 -HCF. The difference between the corresponding leaky quarters in 2009 and the five year average consumptions is as follows: March 52 -HCF, June 54 -HCF, September 354 -HCF, totalling 460 -HCF. We can relatively confidently conclude that these differences where the portion that leaked. The leak was located under ground in an area where it did not enter our sanitary sewer system. So, I would recommend that we expunge the 2009 sewer charges to the tune of 460 HCF @ $4.10 per HCF for sewer charge that would amount to a dollar figure of $1,886.00. Note this figure does not account for any interest accrued on the $1,886.00, or any other part of the outstanding bill since the owners protest. The BPW will want to figure in that too. erik I'm working on the next one now, get it to you soon. (10/8/2010) Kathrin Gehring - Fwd: 804 Stewart Avenue water bill "protest analysis" Page 1 From: Erik Whitney To: Gehring, Kathrin Date: 10/8/2010 12:14 PM Subject: Fwd: 804 Stewart Avenue water bill "protest analysis" >>> Erik Whitney 10/8/2010 12:00 PM >>> Bill, This is a new meter. I would recommend the bill stand as is. We could also provide the manager an analysis of their use with a download of the meter history ( "data - log "). Please also note, I checked with Barb Frycek about the potential for an inside outside discrepancy. I was wrong they never had an outside remote at this location, and reading was always direct before the installation of the new AMR meter. IN 9 >>> Erik Whitney 9/17/2010 3:58 PM >>> Hello Kathy & Bill, The problem here was a read start decimal place (factor) error. The result were that the readings were low by a factor of exactly 10X. This error occurred in the 12/10/08, 3/12/09, and 6/8/09 meter readings before the register was reprogrammed correctly. So the reads were really 150 -HCF, 150 -HCF, and 130 -HCF respectively, not 15,15, and 13 as initially recorded. Historically over the 6 years previous to 12/2008 the consumption average for the quarters in question has been: Q -1 = 113 -HCF, Q -2 = 126 -HCF, Q-4 = 140 - HCF. So the quarters in question are 37 -HCF, 4 -HCF, and 10 -HCF higher than historical average. However the same quarters of the last year 2009/10 are substantially higher. Q -4 (2009) = 177 -HCF, Q -1 (2010) = 150 -HCF, and Q -2 (2010) = 256 -HCF. I believe these numbers represent both increased meter accuracy and increased usage. Bottom line the correct readings are right where one would expect judging both from recent and past historical readings. Regards, erik